More evidence of increasing wealth gap

mwpt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/30/people-born-in-the-1980s-are-half-as-wealthy-in-their-thirties-a/

The children of the "Baby Boomer" generation, currently in their early 30s, have an average net household wealth of £27,000 each a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think tank showed.

By comparison the median wealth of those born in the 1970s had £53,000 on average by the same age.

Most people know this but many will contort their arguments to deny the reality. In the west, we have increasing inequality not only between rich and poor but between older and younger at comparative ages. This should become widely recognised and people should stop making it into an attack or a defence of the elderly. Let's focus on the system that makes this happen, and not the people who benefit or lose out.

Cells will be along shortly to explain how the select lucky few get a huge windfall in inheritance. Remember though, these figures would have included this inheritance and remember that this inheritance contributes to the rising inequality between rich and poor.

What this means is that unless we get some very disruptive technology that makes everyone far better off, then I expect voters in the nations of the developed world who are not addressing the issue, to become increasingly polarised. They'll probably even blame immigrants for their problems and commit economic suicide because of it.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/30/people-born-in-the-1980s-are-half-as-wealthy-in-their-thirties-a/



Most people know this but many will contort their arguments to deny the reality. In the west, we have increasing inequality not only between rich and poor but between older and younger at comparative ages. This should become widely recognised and people should stop making it into an attack or a defence of the elderly. Let's focus on the system that makes this happen, and not the people who benefit or lose out.

Cells will be along shortly to explain how the select lucky few get a huge windfall in inheritance. Remember though, these figures would have included this inheritance and remember that this inheritance contributes to the rising inequality between rich and poor.

What this means is that unless we get some very disruptive technology that makes everyone far better off, then I expect voters in the nations of the developed world who are not addressing the issue, to become increasingly polarised. They'll probably even blame immigrants for their problems and commit economic suicide because of it.

to help the discussion along I thought I would clarify the rules

1st. it is agreed that supply and demand have absolutely NOTHING to do the high house prices in London or the SE or anywhere else

2nd. it is agreed that high rents in London and the SE have absolutely NOTHING to do with supply and demand

3rd. the price of labour (wages ) has absolutely NOTHING to do with supply and demand

4th The cost of increasing infrastructure, school, NHS resourese etc has NOTHING to do with the demand

5th. it is axiomatically obvious that population loss through emigration from 'poorer' countries is a GOOD thing and massively helps the country

6th. it is axiomatically obvious that population increase in the UK through immigration is a massively good thing and helps the UK

7th. Protectionism by the EU especially in agricultural goods is a massively GOOD thing and helps all the developing countries

8th. it is agreed that is immigration fell to say 10s of thousands, the UK would collapse, all industry would stop working, coffee shops would close and WW3 would follow in weeks

as a conclusion there MUST be NO discussion that suggests
-wealth of the older older people has anything to do with HOUSE PRICE inflation due to supply and demand issue

-and again NO discussion suggesting low levels of wealth amoungst younger people is in any way connected to HIGH rents or HIGH house prices or the falling number of OO amoungst the young.

Conrad

'The children of the "Baby Boomer" generation, currently in their early 30s, have an average net household wealth of £27,000 each a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think tank showed.

By comparison the median wealth of those born in the 1970s had £53,000 on average by the same age'.




Seems high to me given we're always told by Owen Jones, Miliband and Corbyn that only the top 1% have any wealth and decent income, lol!


Also does this take account of the fact more people are self employed these days - and I can absolutely guarantee that self employed earnings are hugely under-estimated (for example my wife is my administrator working from home, so this means I can pay her a fair income making my own income less - all perfectly legal)


OFF TOPIC;

As a parent of 2 young teens I'm shocked how much money kids are given these days - most we know get whopping great allowances and this causes some resentment in our household as I am not into this. Plus parents get pressured for whopping great 'Prom' bills, with a lot of girls expecting to have a posh car hired to drop them at the Prom, plus pro makeovers and £400 dress etc. Smart phones are essential gear, and my eldest breaks his within a year (wont have a rubber cover - 'no one has one of those lame things'), so we have to update etc (we make him contribute and he's had to get a PT job). His girl friends have seemingly unlimited funds - quite often from guilt ridden divorced Dads. The cost of teens is orders of magnitude greater compared to my day.

mwpt

Thread Claptoned and Conraded. Or Brexiteered.

I'm out again, enjoy.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Thread Claptoned and Conraded. Or Brexiteered.

I'm out again, enjoy.

did you really vote for Corbyn?

michaels

Anyone seen what the split in lost wealth is between pensions, property and other assets?

Do university tuition fees impact for either or both groups?

Is the main difference down to incomes being equal and housing costs being higher or has the younger generation spent more on consumption and less 'investing' in housing (perhaps forced because they have been unable to purchase due to effectively stricter lending)? (This links with Conrad's point that children now have very high expectations of being able to consume without waiting and saving).

And I have to agree with Clapton (I know, sorry), in the SE at least, the rising population must be connected with lower wages and higher housing costs.

Conrad

mwpt wrote: »

Let's focus on the system that makes this happen, and not the people who benefit or lose out.


What this means is that unless we get some very disruptive technology that makes everyone far better off

The army of well-off lefties (most BBC comedians for example) deploy every excuse they can think of for holding on to wealth, but they are all specious. It is not enough to argue for a more just society. Consistency demands that egalitarian compassion warriors ACT on their principles and lead BY EXAMPLE.


So what proportion of their £50k stage fee (per appearance when on tour) do Izzard and Brand pay their chest combers? Not much apparently as these hypocrites hoard vast wealth.

mayonnaise

CLAPTON wrote: »

1st. it is agreed that supply and demand have absolutely NOTHING to do the high house prices in London or the SE or anywhere else

2nd. it is agreed that high rents in London and the SE have absolutely NOTHING to do with supply and demand

3rd. the price of labour (wages ) has absolutely NOTHING to do with supply and demand

4th The cost of increasing infrastructure, school, NHS resourese etc has NOTHING to do with the demand

5th. it is axiomatically obvious that population loss through emigration from 'poorer' countries is a GOOD thing and massively helps the country

6th. it is axiomatically obvious that population increase in the UK through immigration is a massively good thing and helps the UK

7th. Protectionism by the EU especially in agricultural goods is a massively GOOD thing and helps all the developing countries

8th. it is agreed that is immigration fell to say 10s of thousands, the UK would collapse, all industry would stop working, coffee shops would close and WW3 would follow in weeks

9th. it is axiomatically obvious that you're still an obnoxious twit

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

'The children of the "Baby Boomer" generation, currently in their early 30s, have an average net household wealth of £27,000 each a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think tank showed.

By comparison the median wealth of those born in the 1970s had £53,000 on average by the same age'.

Perhaps they were more sensible with their money and less likely to have an interest only mortgage.

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps they were more sensible with their money and less likely to have an interest only mortgage.

Perhaps because they bought an equivalent property for half the cost so the same monthly mortgage payment covered interest and capital rather than just interest?

Note 1: Because after all even though interest rates are now lower, the additonal premium for having a small deposit is higher so the overall rate is probably similar and given higher prices the same payment that covered interest and capital in the past may now only cover interest

Note 2: (The Cell's qualification) This analysis is of much more relevance to areas in London and the SE that have seen aprreciable HPI over the last 20 years.

spadoosh

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps they were more sensible with their money and less likely to have an interest only mortgage.

You can speculate or you could just look at this graph.



If you where born in the 70's you more likely bought between 92-99. If you where born in the 80's you more likely bought between 02-09.

No speculation needed. Fewer people making money off houses, lower comparable earnings, higher comparable housing costs.