Inter generational fairness

chucknorris

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I was simply sayimg that the mistakes that boomers made were made from a position of ignorance, an excuse that young people nowadays can't make.

We all make mistakes, show me someone that hasn't made a mistake and I'll show you someone that hasn't done much. The trick is to learn from your mistakes, you often learn a lot more from doing something wrong, rather than happening to get it right first time.

Cakeguts

I can remember people in my generation saying that they were going to give their children everything that they themselves didn't get when they were growing up. If you do this you educate your children to expect to get something straight away when they want it. Then there is the extensive marketing of "things" that you can buy on finance so these adults who expect to get things straight away find a way to fund them through finance. The reason why people who were born just after the war did better is because no one apart from the extremely wealthy could give their children what they wanted when they wanted it. A good example of giving children what they want when they want it is the number of primary age children who get iphones or tablets for Christmas. I remember also about parents spending small fortunes on branded trainers for their children about 10 years ago. This is ridiculous small children shouldn't be trained to emotionally blackmail adults to give them everything they want. When these children become adults they have been conditioned to getting what they want when they want it. If they aren't earning enough they turn to finance to fund it.

I would be very interested to know who buys new cars on finance as most of the people I know would consider this to be a complete waste of money when you can buy a second hand one for a lot less.

What a lot of young people don't realise when they take a job in London is that although the job may be better paid than one in Manchester the actual disposable income is less because of higher living costs. Manchester is booming. It is no more decrepit than London. If anything the quality of housing in the north is better. Salford Quays has recently been the area of the highest employment of recent graduates. There are a lot of media and communication companies there because of media city.

The problem with university degrees is that people don't do enough research. One of the simplest ways to do this is to research graduate prospects of not only the general university population but also of any chosen course. If you do this you can see which courses don't lead to a job. Many students seem to regard degrees as something they would buy off a supermarket shelf with the idea that all degrees are the same. They don't ask the obvious question of why some university courses have very high minimum entry requirements and some have ones that more or less anyone could get. The information is all available all they have to do is to look at it. The top 10% of students will as they always have get the best paid jobs. This has not changed. What has changed is that technical colleges, teacher training colleges, art colleges, and polytechnics are now all called universities and students have to get into debt to attend all of them. If someone gets a degree from a technical college that has changed its name to a university their job will be likely to be about the same level as it would have been if they had got a diploma from a technical college. The only difference is that technical college education was free.
Most of the people who go to ex technical colleges, art colleges, teacher training colleges and polytechnics will get a better job by doing an apprenticeship. However many parents don't realise this because they also haven't done any research and are relying on memories of when they were young and the 10% of the population had degrees.

chucknorris

Cakeguts wrote: »

What a lot of young people don't realise when they take a job in London is that although the job may be better paid than one in Manchester the actual disposable income is less because of higher living costs.

That is obvious, anyone that doesn't realise that isn't going to reach the top of their profession anyway. What you are missing is that in London you get to a senior position much more quickly, because (if you want it) you get responsibility at a much earlier stage of your career. I actually demanded it, I graduated at 32 years old, and didn't have time to faff around, after being there a few months, at my first review my employed told me that they were very pleased with me, I told them that isn't enough, if you don't give me a project to run, I am going to leave (they did). Also what you are missing is that even though housing is very expensive, bear it, buy somewhere then eventually downsize to somewhere like Manchester (with massive equity), you will also be more senior in your career too (if you elected to take that path).

missbiggles1

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm fairly well educated I.e. To degree level, but when I was 22 I made some mistakes - like I was persuaded to take an endowment mortgage and I took a pension that has terrible exit penalties before 65.

Do you really think young people are now very clued up on all these kind of things? I personally don't think that they are in a much better position and if anything the "smoke and mirrors" of marketing are ever more sophisticated.

I am more clued up now, but that's because I'm older I.e. The university of life, not because of the changing times.

I think the information is there and very accessible in a way that it wasn't when I was younger. If people aren't "clued up", that's because they aren't interested rather than because it's difficult to find out.

Houseplant26

Well this has been an interesting read as a 26year old (who does not have 100k saved, more like £100).

I decided to work hard in school. I got straight As and then a first class degree. In a subject that doesn't land you a well paying job. I did it because I loved it and it fitted in with things I value about society and the world. I earn below average and pay around half my salary straight into rent and bills, before buying any food etc. I'm from a lower class to middle class family. Parents live in a rural area, some towns within a commuting distance but limited job prospects.

I valued broadening my mind and gaining independence more than staying at home and saving in a entry level job. It wouldn't have occurred to me to expect my parents to support me and keep housing me and feeding me until 26!!!! They couldn't have afforded to!

They do have some equity in a house which one day I may see some of. I am unlikely to get any inheritance from grandparents, one set died before I was 5 (their money helped my parents buy) and their are family politics at play with the other.

I think it is unfair to expect people to only study certain professions at certain universities, or that only those who do will stand a chance of earning. I also think nurses, charity workers, social workers, police, fireman, ambulance workers and those working in education, arts and cultural sectors should be paid more.

Interested that this thread makes no references to those with disabilities. Also interesting the talk about 'a woman' and how her life involves having babies then giving up work until this age and then this happening..... Made me laugh!!! I had a stay at home dad then a stay at home, my parents have both had times employed and times not times earning minimum wage and times not. I feel more well rounded for this.

Ps I owe no money to anyone apart from student finance. I don't buy fancy gadgets, have a car, go on lots of holidays.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't agree a 2 bed terrace where I am is £300k to be able to buy that you would need to be earning a joint incom of over £60k. Rent on an equivelent property is £850 a month.

what dont you agree with? that wealth other than income exists?

If I say that Kensington was always expensive and you always really needed more than just an income to buy in kensington no body would disagree or find anything wrong with that. Well what if I said the same about belgravia or chelsea or Holland Park, well again its true you really need more than just an income to buy there and no one would object to pointing out this simple fact.

Then the question arises is that only ever true for the 15 (or thereabouts) ultra prime areas of London. Was the number below 15 at some point and will it be above 15 in the future? And when you think it through its obvious, there were fewer ultra prime areas in generations gone by and there will be more in the generations to come.

Much of inner London is becoming home to not income buyers but capital buyers. These people exist and the general public needs to accept that they exist and that they will use their capital to buy homes in places they want to live. its no good going with your £60k income when someone else might be in the area with £60m of generational wealth or capital acquired themselves. Do we pretend these people dont exist, do we ban them from bidding for homes?

GreatApe

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince though misbiggles. I've said multiple times I don't blame the boomers, so we agree on that, right?

But I'm just going to have to disagree with you about the youth. I just don't agree with labelling an entire generation as lazy as if human biology has somehow changed over one generation. It feels to me that - without meaning to - you're saying the previous generations were superior.

different times different options were available or not available. What people should be saying is that the young of today have it a lot easier in many ways (like starting work age 22 rather than 15) rather than that they are lazy.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

The beneficiaries are very few certainly not the majority of boomers and everybody who uses the credit system be it credit cards, mortgages or any other form of credit must take some responsibility.

My main asset is my house which is worth about 25% more that it would have been had it just kept up with earnings and as I need to live in it it is not a real benefit.

almost no one considers that there is some degree of building regulations arbitrage which pushed prices up

building regs pushed up the cost of building new homes, but people dont really care about building regs they sure dont pay more for a modern house of the exact size quality location than a 100 year old version

think of it this way, if buildings regs applied to all homes so old homes had to have their foundations made deeper and thicker and their walls roof windows etc meet modern regs it might cost say £50k to do the work yet it would add likely no more than £10k to the value. the difference of £40k is regulatory inflation of existing stock values.

GreatApe

Houseplant26 wrote: »

Well this has been an interesting read as a 26year old (who does not have 100k saved, more like £100).

I decided to work hard in school. I got straight As and then a first class degree. In a subject that doesn't land you a well paying job. I did it because I loved it and it fitted in with things I value about society and the world. I earn below average and pay around half my salary straight into rent and bills, before buying any food etc. I'm from a lower class to middle class family. Parents live in a rural area, some towns within a commuting distance but limited job prospects.

I valued broadening my mind and gaining independence more than staying at home and saving in a entry level job. It wouldn't have occurred to me to expect my parents to support me and keep housing me and feeding me until 26!!!! They couldn't have afforded to!

They do have some equity in a house which one day I may see some of. I am unlikely to get any inheritance from grandparents, one set died before I was 5 (their money helped my parents buy) and their are family politics at play with the other.

I think it is unfair to expect people to only study certain professions at certain universities, or that only those who do will stand a chance of earning. I also think nurses, charity workers, social workers, police, fireman, ambulance workers and those working in education, arts and cultural sectors should be paid more.

Interested that this thread makes no references to those with disabilities. Also interesting the talk about 'a woman' and how her life involves having babies then giving up work until this age and then this happening..... Made me laugh!!! I had a stay at home dad then a stay at home, my parents have both had times employed and times not times earning minimum wage and times not. I feel more well rounded for this.

Ps I owe no money to anyone apart from student finance. I don't buy fancy gadgets, have a car, go on lots of holidays.

it is important to be happy and content, people can achieve that without having a huge sum of money

The problem is there are plenty of people on this board who are not happy and content, they are miserable and angry. The reason is they dont understand that trying to buy a property that would be in the top one third of the stock with an income and assets that are in the bottom one third of households is just not going to happen

If more of the 'house prices are too high' group realized inter-generation wealth exists, gifts exist, capital exists, and its not just income and definitely not the income of just one person then maybe they would be more content and happy as they would realize given the hand they were dealt they are doing ok

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

what dont you agree with? that wealth other than income exists?

If I say that Kensington was always expensive and you always really needed more than just an income to buy in kensington no body would disagree or find anything wrong with that. Well what if I said the same about belgravia or chelsea or Holland Park, well again its true you really need more than just an income to buy there and no one would object to pointing out this simple fact.

Then the question arises is that only ever true for the 15 (or thereabouts) ultra prime areas of London. Was the number below 15 at some point and will it be above 15 in the future? And when you think it through its obvious, there were fewer ultra prime areas in generations gone by and there will be more in the generations to come.

Much of inner London is becoming home to not income buyers but capital buyers. These people exist and the general public needs to accept that they exist and that they will use their capital to buy homes in places they want to live. its no good going with your £60k income when someone else might be in the area with £60m of generational wealth or capital acquired themselves. Do we pretend these people dont exist, do we ban them from bidding for homes?

What I don't agree with is that central London is the only place where property is unaffordable.