Inter generational fairness

missbiggles1

mwpt wrote: »

House prices have risen faster than wages in certain areas. Lower interest rates mean the monthly payments may still appear affordable, but wanting to pay off your mortgage early is much harder and getting the deposit is much harder. "Luckily" there are still enough rich buyers around to keep the prices high but those on lower salaries struggle.

However, boomers are going to be dying out soon while there is a good chance that those still alive in the next 10-50 years will benefit from some truly mind blowing technology and potentially even significant anti-aging or age-reverseal. People are also becoming more liberal and tolerant so the world is (with some ups and downs) becoming a nicer place to live.

Put simply, offered a choice between being a boomer and being a 20 something year old looking to start out their adult life now, I'd choose the latter every time.

I assume as you've said this, that you're on the younger side of the generation divide.:D

mwpt

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I assume as you've said this, that you're on the younger side of the generation divide.:D

No, I'm one of those silly people who chose to be born just outside of boomer period but also chose not to take advantage of affordable house prices when I could have. I'm fast approaching 40s.

I wasn't being nasty about "boomers" (silly word anyway), I was presenting my view that they had it great in some ways but I'd still rather be born later. I'm an optimist about the future, it's the present that I generally worry about

[Deleted User]

mwpt wrote: »

No, I'm one of those silly people who chose to be born just outside of boomer period but also chose not to take advantage of affordable house prices when I could have. I'm fast approaching 40s.

I wasn't being nasty about "boomers" (silly word anyway), I was presenting my view that they had it great in some ways but I'd still rather be born later. I'm an optimist about the future, it's the present that I generally worry about

Generation X - we had all the best music anyway

Linton

[QUOTE=ringo_24601;71625348.........
I see that you've conveniently forgotten that your university education was free, but would now cost at least £27,000
.[/QUOTE]

In the 1960s when I went to University it was free and we got adequate maintenance grants. However this was a privilege only available to about 7% of the population. Most of the rest left school at 15 with no qualifications and started work immediately. It was normal to live with your parents until you got married and perhaps not buy a house until you had children.

Pensions were often a perk to those people with better than average jobs - if you worked in an office rather than in the factory or outside you were clearly one step up the social lader. If you did have a job with a pension (almost certainly a DB pension) it acted as "golden chains" - the pension was based on your salary when you left that employment, so changing jobs beyond middle age was a seriously bad idea. Most people didnt have the opportunity for pensions or chose not to pay for them.

That is the problem with these comparisons. The moaners compare the relative wealth of the lucky few 50 years ago and expect that to be available to everyone now. It cant be. 50 years ago the theory was that the country needed a relatively small highly educated elite with the bulk of people doing manual or semi skilled work. This elite did very well in general. Now everyone needs a much better level of education - the old elite no longer exists.

Comparisons should be made on how the average person is treated.

Note - I would rather like to see official data on these aspects, however despite detailed googling I have yet to find any. However my memory is still reasonably sharp!

[Deleted User]

I only mentioned university fees as OP said they had a degree.

You're right, that these comparisons are especially difficult. All you can really do is look at outcomes - people are getting married older, having kids older, buying homes older.

ukcarper

Drawing arbitrary lines is not very helpful after all a boomer born in early 60s has more in common with a gen Xer born in late 60s than a boomer born in the 40s. In relation to earnings property was at its cheapest in the 90s so those born in the late 60s benefited from that but those born in the early 80s were effected by the boom in the early 2000s.

I don't think that the reason people buy later is solely down to prices. In 60s and 70s people started work early in the 60s the majority at the age of 15 and very few people went to university by the time most people were 22 they had been working 6 or 7 years. People got married earlier stayed at home with thier parents until they did.
Defined benefit pensions were not that common I am still in contact with half a dozen of my school friends and I'm the only one with a full defined benefit pension. Although most pension funds are undefunded the fact that my company took a couple of pension holidays hasn't helped.

GreatApe

ringo_24601 wrote: »

blah blah "We lived on cardboard boxes in our first house"... "didn't have any iphones ect" ... "the youth of today spend all their money on rubbish

The big difference is that people start work a lot later now, boys used to start work age 15 now its likely closer to age 21-22 which means 6-7 years full time income difference. I'm sure if a kid could start working age 15 and they saved while staying with their parents they would likely have £60-70k assuming they were just on a min wage job. In half the country that is a 50% plus deposit on the first home.

You can not complain that a 25 year old now has it tough vs a 25 year old of yesteryear, one has 4 years full time work the other 10 years under their belt.

Because people born post-war were so much more special than those born in the last 30 years? They were so much better at saving, and circumstances were exactly the same?

No as said the primary difference was they started working age 15 rather than 21 that 6 years of full time income is a huge difference.

Honestly, people project such rubbish. We live in different economic times. Credit is far more available. Consumer/home inflation has continued whilst salaries have not inflated. There is a MASSIVE house price difference between the North and South of the country. There has been the death of the manufacturing industries.

sure, but you would be crazy to wish to have been born in 1950 rather than 1990

I see that you've conveniently forgotten that your university education was free, but would now cost at least £27,000

education and information is now free and much higher quality.

you want to learn about quantum mechanics? here you go one of the best universities in the world
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/lecture-videos/

Pensions are obviously a big problem. There is going to be a decreasingly poor ratio of pension receivers Vs pension pot payers. It's a pyramid scheme and it's going to topple unless people take less state pension. Pension *should* be means tested.

productivity will pay for pensions, if needed we can import young 20-30 year olds to dilute the old to young ratio

We're on a generational slide.

Absolute nonsense

The boomers had it better than their parents, but the children of boomers (and their children) are most likely not going to have it as good. It's the inevitable process of automation and globalisation. Sure we'll have cooler gadgets, but we'll loose out paying more for education, housing and pensions.

it is certainly true that government policy specifically pensions and taxes could greatly benefit one section of society vs others. However overall I reckon this is not the case that a 30 year old today has much more opportunity and an easier and healthier life than a 30 year old of 30 years ago.

They are taller, stronger, healthier, smarter, started work later, have better quality jobs, will live longer will inherit a lot more and may even live to see the rise of the AI robots.

missbiggles1

mwpt wrote: »

No, I'm one of those silly people who chose to be born just outside of boomer period but also chose not to take advantage of affordable house prices when I could have. I'm fast approaching 40s.

I wasn't being nasty about "boomers" (silly word anyway), I was presenting my view that they had it great in some ways but I'd still rather be born later. I'm an optimist about the future, it's the present that I generally worry about

I didn't think you were being nasty about boomers, I just thought you hadn't lived in earlier years when life was more civilised.:)

mwpt

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Generation X - we had all the best music anyway

Absolutely.

GreatApe

steampowered wrote: »

I am sure this is a factor for some first time buyers, but university and gap years lasting until people are 30?

life stages start later now than a generation ago.

People start work later in some cases its 15 years old vs 22 years old that is a huge 7 years full time income and 'adulthood' difference.

People get married later and may more don't get married at all.

A very big difference is also that today many more people leave significant inheritances. Also bear in mind more people own their own homes today than the total number of homes in existence 50 years ago.