More evidence of increasing wealth gap

ruperts

Oh well I'm sure the tories will come good on their promise to build more houses........ hahahahaha, who am I kidding

cells

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.

I don't believe its true. I would like to see their actual calculations and information.

Also the inheritences factor is at play once more. Now life expectancy is about 83 while a generation ago it was closer to 73. What this means is people have to wait a decade longer to get the inheritences.

So if they are comparing a generation who received inheritences vs one who hasn't but it going to in 10 years then its clearly wrong.


I will say again I simply don't believe it. By every metric we are richer.

It would be I think more fair to look at end of life worth. Did the pensioners of 1980 have more than the pensioners of today. Will the pensioners of 2050 have more than the pensioners of today? Yea they will

Also we are not comparing like with like. My father started working full time age 15 while most people today seem to start age 21/22

cells

Its simply false. Don't take reports and articles at face value most of them are worthless.

The young today have more than the young of yesteryears in every way possible. Not just in wealth but every single way possible. From the food they eat to the goods they consume to the wealth they will come into.

Simply ask yourself which year would you wish to be born into if you wanted a nice easy life I would choose this year and if I could choose the future I would probably choose the future.

And people can't take wealth with then to the grave. If the old sods have it they are just holding onto it for a few years before the next generation gets it

cells

michaels wrote: »

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.

It's also timing. Comparing today with say 1995 is just cherry picking dates. 1995 was the low (house price wise) of that recession. If someone wants to look at 1995 its much more fair to look at 2010 which was the low of this recession. So comparing two lows to try abd keep things a bit more realistic.

Prices in London were about half what they are now just 5 years ago. That should be the measure if people are looking at the low point of the 1990s. Alternatively if someone wants to look at 2016 some 6-7 years after the low they should look at 2001-2002 some 6-7 years after the 1990s low


Housing is more expensive but interest payments are much much lower. Abd the very important factor is that inheritences are much much higher today than they were a generation ago. And it's spread very wide.

mrginge

cells wrote: »

Its simply false. Don't take reports and articles at face value most of them are worthless.

The young today have more than the young of yesteryears in every way possible. Not just in wealth but every single way possible. From the food they eat to the goods they consume to the wealth they will come into.

Simply ask yourself which year would you wish to be born into if you wanted a nice easy life I would choose this year and if I could choose the future I would probably choose the future.

And people can't take wealth with then to the grave. If the old sods have it they are just holding onto it for a few years before the next generation gets it

It would be interesting to see a comparison of income % spent on consumption vs that spent on wealth accumulation.

I don't know if such analysis exists.

ukcarper

spadoosh wrote: »

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.

If you were born on the 70s you were not a boomer but one of thier children.

cells

mrginge wrote: »

It would be interesting to see a comparison of income % spent on consumption vs that spent on wealth accumulation.

I don't know if such analysis exists.

Also the number of years worked. If you are comparing one group who started working age 15 and another group age 22 to see what they have at age 30 that's hardly comparable. One groups been working for 15 years while the others been working for 8.

If you don't look at their spending its hardly a valid comparison. If one group had 10 holidays and expensive cloths expensive meals expensive hobbies and an expensive education and a car all by the age of 30 and the other only had basic simple things that's hardly comparing like with like


Anyone who wishes they spent their 20s in the 1970s rather than the 2000s is insane.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Also the number of years worked. If you are comparing one group who started working age 15 and another group age 22 to see what they have at age 30 that's hardly comparable. One groups been working for 15 years while the others been working for 8.

If you don't look at their spending its hardly a valid comparison. If one group had 10 holidays and expensive cloths expensive meals expensive hobbies and an expensive education and a car all by the age of 30 and the other only had basic simple things that's hardly comparing like with like


Anyone who wishes they spent their 20s in the 1970s rather than the 2000s is insane.

The whole thing is ridiculous not only did people start work earlier they got married earlier the way they lived thier lives was completely different.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Most people know this but many will contort their arguments to deny the reality.
Cells will be along shortly to explain
.

Use your own judgement to figure out how wrong this report must be


Would you rather be a 15 year old kid today or would you rather be a 15 year old kid in 1980?

The kid today gets to go to university while his pal needs to get a health harming job in the steel mill. The kid today probably had multiple family holidays and will likely have multiple more by age 30 his pal probably had no holidays nor will he to 30. The kid today will probably learn to drive and buy a car for his pal that was a lot harder. Even if they both do achieve a car one has a high risk crap car the other a modern one. The kid today has had a life full of education information computers fee movies and music while his pal had Mr blobby on Chanel 4. The kid today is more healthy and will live longer and will probably even be taller and stronger than his pal of yesteryear. The kid today will likely have better quality parents and a better society. The kid today will have a wage that can buy more of almost everything.

The only 'downside' is that the kid today needs to wait to age 45 to get an inheritences rather than age 30 for the kid of yesteryear.

I still think the report is nonsense but even if you believe the sum total of the wealth of someone age 30 is lower now than a generation ago you have to accept that you are not comparing like with like.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The whole thing is ridiculous not only did people start work earlier they got married earlier the way they lived thier lives was completely different.

Exactly by age 30 many 'kids' of yesteryear had two kids already and had a combined close to 30 years of full time employment under their belts. Many 30 year olds of today by comparison are just entering adulthood.

That's another point if its looking at a couple and their wealth a generation gmago vs a Singleton today its hardly going to be representative. More people got married back then and at a younger age.