We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Inter generational fairness
Comments
-
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"
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?
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.
I see that you've conveniently forgotten that your university education was free, but would now cost at least £27,000
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.
We're on a generational slide. 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.
I hadn't forgotten my university education is free, I have two at uni now and the accommodation and upkeep fees are tremendous.
My point was that some things are far worse for youngsters (pensions, uni fees, house prices (not cost)) but it was also tough years ago. I just worry that some are trying t pit young against old. I am trying my best to see my kids through uni (my parents didn't and couldn't afford to anyway, but yes I had a grant of £28/week)0 -
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.
one of the problems is there has not been any significant productivity improvements in building uk type homes within the UK, in fact we have possibly gone backwards. The only real differences might be a small tiny improvement in power tools but that is more than offset by higher regulations on things like how deep and thick foundations and walls needs to be etc
There needs to be a great improvement in the methods used to build homes in the UK and this needs to be forced though by government forcing banks to accept a much wider range of construction methods to lend against and maybe even forcing the 10 biggest building companies to construct at least 10% of their homes via modular off site production.
Specifically I feel the UK needs to move to modular factory construction possibly using more steel/concrete/plastics/wood rather than bricks and mortar. There also needs to be a proper cost benefit analysis of regulations. It might be nice to mandate deeper thicker foundations but what was wrong with the old methods where they were not so deep or thick yet many of the terraces with those foundations are still standing 100 years from when they were built?
There is little to no discussion at all on how to fundamentally and radically improve actual build costs and especially build times which is odd as in any other production or manufacturing field that would be the key to improving costs and quality.0 -
UK unemployment falls to 11-year low
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37997713
What tax increases are you worried about?
What do you mean by "society impact of change"; what are you concerned about?
Society changes - less work means some people will be more marginalised and stigmatised. Automation is great if it all means we get a 3 day week and the same amount to spend. Not going to happen is it ?0 -
Tax - Google add to their headquarters but will pay next to no tax. Automation means better productivity but less jobs - do you really believe government will tax these companies to pay out in unemployment benefit rather than continue to give these companies to stay in the uk rather than move elsewhere post brexit ?
Society changes - less work means some people will be more marginalised and stigmatised. Automation is great if it all means we get a 3 day week and the same amount to spend. Not going to happen is it ?
we have had a lot of automation and productivity improvements pretty much constantly for the last 50 years yet employment levels and wealth are as high as they ever have been. Why would you expect further improvements to lead to unemployment and less wealth when the last 50 years is evidence for the opposite?0 -
Tax - Google add to their headquarters but will pay next to no tax. ...
How do you know that?...Automation means better productivity but less jobs - ...
From the latest ONS release;
The employment rate (the proportion of people aged from 16 to 64 who were in work) was 74.5%, the joint highest since comparable records began in 1971.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/latest
Looks to me like there are more jobs....do you really believe government will tax these companies to pay out in unemployment benefit rather than continue to give these companies to stay in the uk rather than move elsewhere post brexit ?...
It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of researching the facts....Society changes - less work means some people will be more marginalised and stigmatised.
But there isn't less work. There's more...Automation is great if it all means we get a 3 day week and the same amount to spend. Not going to happen is it ?
Why not. Don't you know any history? Do you have any idea what the working week was like in a 19thC cotton mill or whatever.0 -
I hadn't forgotten my university education is free, I have two at uni now and the accommodation and upkeep fees are tremendous.
My point was that some things are far worse for youngsters (pensions, uni fees, house prices (not cost)) but it was also tough years ago. I just worry that some are trying t pit young against old. I am trying my best to see my kids through uni (my parents didn't and couldn't afford to anyway, but yes I had a grant of £28/week)
No one is saying that boomers had it easy or didn't work for that they have.
But.
The UK has never been a wealthy country in terms of purchasing power parity of an average person.
That is why it is so frustrating for younger people to see boomers , who through an accident of timing have done very well out of post war political largesse and almost unimaginable house price inflation, apparently shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well I'm alright."
No most boomers didnt go to university but they entered the labour market in a time when most jobs didn't need a degree. To provide a case in point, there are plenty of older people working at a senior level in the machinery of state and business that ensure that a degree is the minimum requirement for most jobs, who don;t have one themselves.
Previously if you wanted to sell a house and get hundreds of thousands of pounds for it, you had to buy a house that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. But many boomers are quite pleased that the mid terrace they bought as a second rung home in the 80s is worth a quarter of a million, but aren't exactly filling their MPs post bag with angry letters that young couples in exactly the same position as they were, now can't afford anywhere secure to live unless more houses are built.
On the whole young people do just get on with their lives. Unlike when young boomers were roaming the streets, burglary and muggings and violent crime, have never been lower. Young people aren't marauding the streets robbing from you. They aren't out granny bashing (remember that from the 80s and early 90s?).
What they are mostly doing is paying a fortune for education, working in insecure jobs and paying 2/3 of their take home to multiple property owning landlords.
It would be nice if you could all get behind them a bit more rather than voting in governments that just give them the middle finger every 5 years.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »No one is saying that boomers had it easy or didn't work for that they have.
But.
The UK has never been a wealthy country in terms of purchasing power parity of an average person.
That is why it is so frustrating for younger people to see boomers , who through an accident of timing have done very well out of post war political largesse and almost unimaginable house price inflation, apparently shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well I'm alright."
No most boomers didnt go to university but they entered the labour market in a time when most jobs didn't need a degree. To provide a case in point, there are plenty of older people working at a senior level in the machinery of state and business that ensure that a degree is the minimum requirement for most jobs, who don;t have one themselves.
Previously if you wanted to sell a house and get hundreds of thousands of pounds for it, you had to buy a house that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. But many boomers are quite pleased that the mid terrace they bought as a second rung home in the 80s is worth a quarter of a million, but aren't exactly filling their MPs post bag with angry letters that young couples in exactly the same position as they were, now can't afford anywhere secure to live unless more houses are built.
On the whole young people do just get on with their lives. Unlike when young boomers were roaming the streets, burglary and muggings and violent crime, have never been lower. Young people aren't marauding the streets robbing from you. They aren't out granny bashing (remember that from the 80s and early 90s?).
What they are mostly doing is paying a fortune for education, working in insecure jobs and paying 2/3 of their take home to multiple property owning landlords.
It would be nice if you could all get behind them a bit more rather than voting in governments that just give them the middle finger every 5 years.
the best thing we can do for our young is to ensure they
-can get decent jobs
-that employers have incentives to train the young
-are paid decent wages
-have good long term prospects
-have access to decent housing
simply stopping the endless flood of young immigrants will improve all the above.0 -
the best thing we can do for our young is to ensure they
-can get decent jobs
-that employers have incentives to train the young
-are paid decent wages
-have good long term prospects
-have access to decent housing
simply stopping the endless flood of young immigrants will improve all the above.
Change the record for God's sake Sir Oswald...0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »No one is saying that boomers had it easy or didn't work for that they have.
But.
The UK has never been a wealthy country in terms of purchasing power parity of an average person.
That is why it is so frustrating for younger people to see boomers , who through an accident of timing have done very well out of post war political largesse and almost unimaginable house price inflation, apparently shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well I'm alright."
No most boomers didnt go to university but they entered the labour market in a time when most jobs didn't need a degree. To provide a case in point, there are plenty of older people working at a senior level in the machinery of state and business that ensure that a degree is the minimum requirement for most jobs, who don;t have one themselves.
Previously if you wanted to sell a house and get hundreds of thousands of pounds for it, you had to buy a house that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. But many boomers are quite pleased that the mid terrace they bought as a second rung home in the 80s is worth a quarter of a million, but aren't exactly filling their MPs post bag with angry letters that young couples in exactly the same position as they were, now can't afford anywhere secure to live unless more houses are built.
On the whole young people do just get on with their lives. Unlike when young boomers were roaming the streets, burglary and muggings and violent crime, have never been lower. Young people aren't marauding the streets robbing from you. They aren't out granny bashing (remember that from the 80s and early 90s?).
What they are mostly doing is paying a fortune for education, working in insecure jobs and paying 2/3 of their take home to multiple property owning landlords.
It would be nice if you could all get behind them a bit more rather than voting in governments that just give them the middle finger every 5 years.
a kid that starts full time work age 16 even on the min wage of £7.20ph who lives at home with their parents will be able to save £100k by the age of 26 that £100k is enough to buy a starter home in most the country outright. If at age 26 they find a partner who did the same thing together they would have 1 no mortgage home and 1 no mortgage rental to give them ~£600pm - 700pm rental passive income too on top of their full time jobs. If they keep working to the age of 30 they can probably buy another rental outright. If the woman has children by 30 she can give up work but would still have £1.2-£1.4k a month in rental income. The husband still on min wage would bring in £1k a month post tax which is not huge but with no mortgage or rent its enough to get by on for sure. Their rental income they can save further to increase their wealth or they can spend it for a higher quality of life. Lets assume they spend it all so they have about £2k a month disposable quite a decent life.
The woman can return to part time work when the youngest kid is say 14 and can return to full time work when the youngest kid is say 16-18. That is likely when she hits 50 so at least another 15 years of full time income from her so the family unit can save all of that additional income.
If they have 2 children, when they themselves die they can hand over 2 fully paid off homes to them so one each. That means their own kids have it even easier/better
That might not be possible in London where starter homes cost £300k but for Scotland, northern ireland, wales, north east, north west, west midlands, east midlands, yorkshire etc it is possible
Things do not seem that bad imo.
The above would be a worse case for a decent family with a decent upbringing.
of course if the family unit is dysfunctional or not very MSE or there is a divorce somewhere in between adding to costs and lowering incomes then things might not pan out well but that was/has been true for as far back as you care to recall.
The important thing to note other than things not being so bad is that this family leaves an inheritance quite a significant one. which means the next generation has even more. If they too leave an inheritance on top of what they received then the next lot have even more. etc etc0 -
Toastie........as a matter interest what colour government would you recommend. Blue or red.
We have tried both, we even had a coalition but it made no difference to the number of houses being built or the affordability of houses.
What I see as the main problem is the north south divide.
As a general rule the most affordable housing is in the north, but then there are more and betterpaid jobs in the south east.
If we can address that issue then things might imprive.
Those terraced houses that you talk about In The south east can be upwards of £0.5m. A similar property "ooooop norff" could be as little as £50k and even less in some areas.
Id the jobs were more evenly distributed across the UK then housing pressures would ease.
A quick look on RM will show there is no shortage of decent affordable housing but it's just not where the work is.
Andj agree that extra 7 years in the work place will make a huge impact on someone's finances.....
It is hardly surprising that older people hold most of the wealth and assets - they have simply had longer to acquire it.
Our younger people do lose out by being out of the workplace for longer.
They also,lose out by renting rather than remaining with family when they start work. Yes I realise that often tney have to move away to find work so renting is their only option. Again the job problem ..
However, to then have children whilst still renting compounds the problem. Again I do Understand the biological pressures - fertility declines after the age of 35 so waiting too long before starting a family can be a risky strategy. The point is if you have children and are in rented accommodation it becomes almost impossible to save for a deposit.
Those missed early years when our young people could be working and saving really count.
I started full time work at 15 although I had Saturday jobs from the age of 13 (you could then). I had a long working life and although I'm not rich by any means it was the length of time in work that allowed to be build up what wealth I do,have. Also i was 33 before I had my first child so that was 12 years at work first. That makes a huge difference.
I would love to be able to revisit this in say 30 years time - I would be 95 so maybe I might make it:rotfl:
I would love to see how our young people fare. I'm betting that most will eventually catch up.
Going back to the previous generation.....my parents, aunts etc. They spent most of their early years being quite poor, it was only when they hit their 50s and their families had flown the nest that they were able to start saving and investing.
Most of them didn't start buying their own homes until quite late by today's standards. My parents were in the early 50/S before they became home owners.
I don't think it's ever been particularly easy for the working class and even some of the middle classes to become homeowners.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards