Some food for Ruggedtoast's soul

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Health yes, wealth no. I'm specifically referring to the developed world here. It entirely depends on how you measure wealth and so that leads us circularly back to the question.

I'm wealthier than I was when I was 22 because wealth is a function of time rather than date of birth.

I was better off than my parents at 22 than they were at 22 and my son, almost 22, is better off than I was at 22. I doubt this is an unusual state of affairs and don't see why 12th February 2016 is the day this progression came to a halt.

mwpt wrote: »

You have no reason to care at all, and so finding it petulant and self indulgent is completely optional and your choice, no one can tell you otherwise. But to many younger people the answers to all of this can lead to how they shape the world in the future. These things are important, regardless of your views.

An interesting angle, were the youth of previous generations as disaffected as today? Were they showing signs that they were unhappy with the wealth distribution and fairness of society? If so (and remember, views here are prone to bias), then it's a good indication that there is nothing new, nothing to see here, and these same youth will be voting for moderate policies as they get older. If not, then it's probably best to pay attention to why they feel the way they do.

Disaffected is a leading word but, Yes, everyone's younger self is probably a little more left wing than their current self. People tend to be a little more in favour of wealth distribution when it's other people's wealth being distributed.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well there we go then.

We can't take uni in isolation and suggest people have it better now as more go to Uni. You have to look at the entire picture.

I wouldn't say that people are better just because they can go to university but it is fairly obvious that it is easy to fund 5% than 50%. Also most apprenticeships did not offer the progression to better paid jobs than a good degree does.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

BUT - on the job training was commonplace.

You weren't expected to have the training before you had a chance of getting the job.

Swings and roundabouts.

Yes, in the good old days you could loaf about at school, leave with few skills or qualifications and walk into a job where you'd remain low skilled. In that regard kids leaving school with no skills or qualifications today are 'worse off'.

The solution is to try and increase skills rather than get rose tinty about the lack of low skilled, low value, manual labour.

princeofpounds

I don't see how you can relate that to boomers being selfish.

Actually to be fair it's not just boomers on the housing front. There are plenty of NIMBYs in the generation above and below too.


I think the selfishness is a more direct case in terms of pensions.


But it's somewhat aside to my main point - I was trying to underline that fact that although I do think there is generational inequality I can recognise it cuts both ways.


But there are two types of generational inequality. One is more natural than the other (we couldn't invent iphones in the 60s-90s, for example, but we didn't have to accrue leviathan pension deficits over the same period)

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm wealthier than I was when I was 22 because wealth is a function of time rather than date of birth.

I was better off than my parents at 22 than they were at 22 and my son, almost 22, is better off than I was at 22. I doubt this is an unusual state of affairs and don't see why 12th February 2016 is the day this progression came to a halt.

Yeah, I misled you a bit with that question. Measuring wealth at 22 is pointless, it's more meaningful to measure as you progress through life.

My guess is that people below a certain threshold will be less wealthy as measured in terms of inflation adjust £s, as they age compared to a previous generation. Your total wealth being your liabilities and assets of course. Some of the state services will be lower and retirement age will be higher in multiple ways (state pension age, state pension amount, personal wealth required).

But in other ways they will be more wealthy. Better educated as society becomes more progressive, more access to technology (online learning is great), more liberal and civilised, healthier and with longer life expectancies with better medical technology.

Given those choices, I'd rather be born in the 90s than in the 50s or 60s (or whenever the boomers were born)!

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

I think the selfishness is a more direct case in terms of pensions.


But there are two types of generational inequality. One is more natural than the other (we couldn't invent iphones in the 60s-90s, for example, but we didn't have to accrue leviathan pension deficits over the same period)

in what way do you have leviathan pension deficits
and it what was does this disadvantage gen x&y

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Yeah, I misled you a bit with that question. Measuring wealth at 22 is pointless, it's more meaningful to measure as you progress through life.

My guess is that people below a certain threshold will be less wealthy as measured in terms of inflation adjust £s, as they age compared to a previous generation. Your total wealth being your liabilities and assets of course. Some of the state services will be lower and retirement age will be higher in multiple ways (state pension age, state pension amount, personal wealth required).

But in other ways they will be more wealthy. Better educated as society becomes more progressive, more access to technology (online learning is great), more liberal and civilised, healthier and with longer life expectancies with better medical technology.

Given those choices, I'd rather be born in the 90s than in the 50s or 60s (or whenever the boomers were born)!

Maybe, but that's a long way off the premise of the OP where the claim is young people are poorer and boomers are to blame because they !!!!!! over their kids.

The problem is houses are expensive in the SE and the root cause is too many people and not enough houses. If the writer of the article can't even identify the problem then any solution will only be arrived at by chance.

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

Actually to be fair it's not just boomers on the housing front. There are plenty of NIMBYs in the generation above and below too.


I think the selfishness is a more direct case in terms of pensions.


But it's somewhat aside to my main point - I was trying to underline that fact that although I do think there is generational inequality I can recognise it cuts both ways.


But there are two types of generational inequality. One is more natural than the other (we couldn't invent iphones in the 60s-90s, for example, but we didn't have to accrue leviathan pension deficits over the same period)

I still don't think it relates to pensions.
The real problem is you can't compare the 60s to now. One thing that is not mentioned is that in the 60s people spent almost twice as much on food as people do now and didn't eat as well.

princeofpounds

in what way do you have leviathan pension deficits
and it what was does this disadvantage gen x&y

Well, if you believe the semi-crazy way governments account for state pensions, there is no such thing as a deficit, because they simplistically only account for cash expenditures occurring in the year.


If you actually use accrual accounting, like any sensible financial entity would, there is a horrific unfunded black hole of a liability because they have promised people pensions that are relentless growing as a share of GDP.


Governments are allowed not to recognise these things because if they don't want to cut and tax any more, they can resort to printing cash, but inflation is a just a different type of cost the population would have to bear. It's no less real because it isn't explicit.


Then you have the central government pension funds which are 'funded' by nothing more than government IOUs, which come straight out of future tax revenue. Local governments are in better shape, funding-wise, thankfully.


Figures in the link below. About £1.4tn in public sector pensions, £2.8tn in current and accrued state pension liabilities. Not small change.


http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/true-level-of-uk-government-debt-exceeds-%C2%A35-trillion


It disadvantages younger generations because a 'first pillar' pension system is a transfer of wealth from workers to retirees, rather than retirees funding their own retirements. Those who ran up these liabilities will not, by and large, be the ones actually paying them (who, because of totally necessary, even insufficient, changes to the retirement age, get to accrue their own pensions at a much slower rate).


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pensionpillar.asp

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

Well, if you believe the semi-crazy way governments account for state pensions, there is no such thing as a deficit, because they simplistically only account for cash expenditures occurring in the year.


If you actually use accrual accounting, like any sensible financial entity would, there is a horrific unfunded black hole of a liability because they have promised people pensions that are relentless growing as a share of GDP.


Governments are allowed not to recognise these things because if they don't want to cut and tax any more, they can resort to printing cash, but inflation is a just a different type of cost the population would have to bear. It's no less real because it isn't explicit.


Then you have the central government pension funds which are 'funded' by nothing more than government IOUs, which come straight out of future tax revenue. Local governments are in better shape, funding-wise, thankfully.


Figures in the link below. About £1.4tn in public sector pensions, £2.8tn in current and accrued state pension liabilities. Not small change.


http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/true-level-of-uk-government-debt-exceeds-%C2%A35-trillion


It disadvantages younger generations because a 'first pillar' pension system is a transfer of wealth from workers to retirees, rather than retirees funding their own retirements. Those who ran up these liabilities will not, by and large, be the ones actually paying them (who, because of totally necessary, even insufficient, changes to the retirement age, get to accrue their own pensions at a much slower rate).


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pensionpillar.asp

it is of course sensible to plan ahead and acknowledge the future costs of state pensions and their effects on the workers at that time.
However, to build a fund now for those costs makes little sense.
Exactly in the same way that we expect the government to fund the NHS, the police, roads and other services in the future but no-one expect them to 'funded' now.
Future needs must be funded by future production of goods and services : there is no other way except for limited stock piling.