Who would be a millenial?

cells

michaels wrote: »

So you are challenging the assumptions made in the report that the BBC article is based on? I assume it is adjusted for inflation but suggests that average lifetime earnings of millennials, based on the path so far, will be lower than for Gen X-ers. and that is just income before we look at the cost of education and housing.

Honestly, this time it appears not just to be a bit of stating the obvious (the older you are the more wealth you have and generally the more you earn) but actually some serious number work that suggests those born later are actually earning less.

I haven't looked into it but even if I agreed with it I would add to the end of that sentence.....for now. 'some serious number work that suggests those born later are actually earning less for now'

There are also theories that say economy growth and development (fundamentally, eg technology improvements, not just a number from a statistic office) is not linear but more of bursts od development. That is to say we go through periods of rapid technological development followed by a period of not so much followed by rapid development etc

To that end we may be in a period of slower development right now but the near future looks like a technological boom to me bought on by computers finally able to do human level perception (being able to see and understand the world like a human). That should bring about great productivity jumps (improvements in wealth) the first of the great computer perception productivity jumps will be self drive transport.


Also in all this is no discussion about the improvements in life expectancy. A new drug that saves people from cancer adding 2 years to life or better car safety which adds 2 years to life is not accounted for. Its a bit like the GDP v GDPppp. A life of someone born today is not equivalent to that of someone born in 1950. I touched on it earlier eg a person working in a steel plant for 30 years before his body is knackered and his lungs full of 30 years of breathing in !!!! is not comparable to a person who will work 50 years behind a computer writing reports

Jason74

wotsthat wrote: »

Does that mean boomers are off the hook and we now need to share the hate with Gen X'ers?

I still fully expect that millenials will be the most wealthy generation ever to have lived in the UK. Worst case scenario - they'll be in second place.

Nah, surely third. Boomers and Gen X (of which I'm one so this certainly isn't a self interested position) will both do much better the the millenials can ever hope for imho.

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

...
To that end we may be in a period of slower development right now but the near future looks like a technological boom to me bought on by computers finally able to do human level perception (being able to see and understand the world like a human). That should bring about great productivity jumps (improvements in wealth) the first of the great computer perception productivity jumps will be self drive transport.
...

Productivity improvements generally mean fewer people acquiring the wealth. I don't know how that sits with the policy of growing the populace significantly over the last few decades.

Also, why should the new quality jobs head here? My wealthy Chinese friend makes a compelling case for South America being the new growth market. He might be wrong, but why should we assume Europe will be in growth?

MobileSaver

michaels wrote: »

Lower lifetime wages for the first time in a modern society

Maybe if millennials worked a little harder and didn't have such a sense of entitlement they'd earn more than the previous generation?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

Lots of parents gift wealth to their kids well before the kids are in their 60s. Not everyone waits until they die. Also grandparents gift to their grandchildren.

"Lots" is just anecdotal though. You are seemingly concentrating on the smaller numbers to make an overarching point.

In the grand scheme of things, I would think the percentage of people that start passing over wealth before they pop it is pretty small.

"Lots" again, don't have huge accessible wealth - the majority is in the bricks they live within. I'd bet this scenario is much more prevalent than the scenario you paint.

wotsthat

Jason74 wrote: »

Nah, surely third. Boomers and Gen X (of which I'm one so this certainly isn't a self interested position) will both do much better the the millenials can ever hope for imho.

I actually expect Gen Y will be better off than both generations that went before.

How many times have doom mongers (past and present) determined that [insert any date from the past] is the date when it all starts going backwards?

kabayiri

MobileSaver wrote: »

Maybe if millennials worked a little harder and didn't have such a sense of entitlement they'd earn more than the previous generation?

The standard working day for most of the Indian IT guys I worked with was either 10.5 hours or 11.5 hours.

Should that be the new reference point?

lisyloo

at the same time its going to be the generation that inherits and gets gifted more wealth than any other generation before it

I am absolutely not convinced about this at all.
I'm 48 and may be up for first inheritance in the next 5 years.
However I might not because it's odd-on that it's going to get spent in care fees.
If I did get an inheritance I will have paid off my mortgage and thinking very much of retirement in my 50's so not terribly useful in terms of buying a house, raising a family i.e. when people need the money.

Of course not everyone's circumstances are the same, but in general as people live longer then the next generation will be approaching retirement and also more will get spent in care fees.

cells

michaels wrote: »

IE given wage levels and progression so far millenials will earn less than Gen-Xers if they follow the same life time pattern form this point forward. There needs to be the sort of acceleration seen by the Boomers for them to beat the Gen X-ers.

I think the relative returns to labour and capital depend on demographics and productivity (both of which are impacted by globalisation) and that part of the reason that returns to labour in the UK are held back is the elasticity of labour supply as a result of the single market in labour. Afterall we see lower goods prices as part of the benefit from the single market so why do we deny that the same thing is not happening to the price of labour?

then we exacerbate the problem in the UK but not expanding infrastructure, especially housing, to keep pace with the increasing population, pushing up the returns on capital ?(ie wealth) at the expense of the returns on labour.

To me the economics are pretty clear on this one.

one of the problems with that idea is that it tries to segregate capital and labour. You are either a worker with no capital or you are a boss and own all the capital.

The truth is most households are a mix of capital and labour. For instance what proportion of the stock and bond market is owned by pension funds? Even with homes ~60% is owned by households and about 20% is owned by households indirectly via the state stock.

Then there is the distribution of the stock of capital. Goldsmith MP father was a rich man with £1.2 billion which fell down to £300m to Goldsmith (the rest going to goldsmith other kids). With Goldsmith MP £300 million might fall down to £60m a head to his 5 kids. So a £1.2 billion fortune is distributed down to £60m in just 2 generations. And so on and so on. That is to say children, death, divorce, all 'redistribute' wealth thinly though the generations.

Cornucopia

lisyloo wrote: »

However I might not because it's odd-on that it's going to get spent in care fees.

But is this about you, though? Money spent on care fees is money that is being put back into the economy rather than being "hoarded".