More evidence of increasing wealth gap

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

People obtaining first degrees 1990 77,000, 2000 243,000, 2010 330,000

total student population would be more useful

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

total student population would be more useful

Don't you like figures?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The younger age groups will consist more of new home owners while the older ages groups will mainly existing home owners.

and this is relevant because?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

and this is relevant because?

If you are looking at the ability of people buying for the first time the younger age groups are more relevant.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

If you are looking at the ability of people buying for the first time the younger age groups are more relevant.

what has this to do with my observation that at a given constant ownership level if a sub group say the over 65 year olds increase their ownership then the other sub groups will have to see lower ownership?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

what has this to do with my observation that at a given constant ownership level if a sub group say the over 65 year olds increase their ownership then the other sub groups will have to see lower ownership?

What has that go to do with how difficult for someone to buy thier first house.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

What has that go to do with how difficult for someone to buy thier first house.

It seems to explain why ownership for the younger groups 25-44 fell even in a period of cheap prices like the 1990s

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

It seems to explain why ownership for the younger groups 25-44 fell even in a period of cheap prices like the 1990s

No. .

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

People obtaining first degrees 1990 77,000, 2000 243,000

Does that rise come about from counting university degrees only in 1990 when there were universities and polytechnics? If so the required comparator would be university plus polytechnic degrees in 1990 versus all degrees in 2000. Otherwise, the latter figure is going to inflate because it's counting more institutions than before, but it's not a like-for-like comparison.

Anyone obtaining a degree in 2000 would have started it no later than 1996 or 1997, which was when Blair and co came in. His inflation of the student population (and consequent devaluation of the value of degrees) would not yet be in that mix.

mrginge

cells wrote: »

what has this to do with my observation that at a given constant ownership level if a sub group say the over 65 year olds increase their ownership then the other sub groups will have to see lower ownership?

It would seem to most normal humans that this was the most obvious conclusion to reach where you have a fixed amount of a particular resource. I hope you didn't spend too long working this out.

Of course, in the case of house ownership, it is also not technically correct, since it is quite possible for the same amount of housing stock to increase each group's ownership level.