Scary numbers on 10-year survival chances

Albermarle

t seems to be a pattern, at least amongst the sort of people who frequent forums about pensions, that people will tend to retire later than they could/should have due to a variety of psychological factors. So anything that helps people to bring that decision into focus - in this case codifying the reality that life is short - probably isn’t a bad thing. 

There are for sure people like that on this forum, but also quite a lot of early retirees as well. 

OldScientist

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Cobbler_tone

OldScientist said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Agree with a lot of that but the world around investment performance and spending habits has TOTALLY changed. A few examples:

- My parents paid £1000 for their house. They never experienced 17% interest rates on their mortgage. From memory it was about £20 a month.
- They have never owned a £1,000 phone, I never had an Xbox and I am sure they would have rented their TV with 3 channels.
- We didn't grow up on jars of £3.50 baked beans from Waitrose. (they are really nice BTW)
- We never went on holiday abroad.
- No one from my family went to university, my children are the first.
- Cash was king and they never borrowed money. If you couldn't afford it you didn't have it.

My dad did national service and was a lorry driver for 40 years and combined with my mum (who worked FT for about her final 10 working years when we were grown up) have pensions of over £50k a year, plus who knows what cash in the bank. I'd be surprised if they spend £15k a year. My mum always says how she didn't spend any of her FT wages and has never spent any of her state pension over the past 18 years because my dad gives her housekeeping. The only ladder he has ever built is one to go in the loft. 

....and yet, they had the toughest generation, had nothing and earnt £9 per week between them.

Maybe it will actually be the opposite, that each subsequent generation gets wealthier and wealthier, supported by the previous one. I'm spending mine!

diveunderthebonnet

Cobbler_tone said:

OldScientist said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Agree with a lot of that but the world around investment performance and spending habits has TOTALLY changed. A few examples:

- My parents paid £1000 for their house. They never experienced 17% interest rates on their mortgage. From memory it was about £20 a month.
- They have never owned a £1,000 phone, I never had an Xbox and I am sure they would have rented their TV with 3 channels.
- We didn't grow up on jars of £3.50 baked beans from Waitrose. (they are really nice BTW)
- We never went on holiday abroad.
- No one from my family went to university, my children are the first.
- Cash was king and they never borrowed money. If you couldn't afford it you didn't have it.

My dad did national service and was a lorry driver for 40 years and combined with my mum (who worked FT for about her final 10 working years when we were grown up) have pensions of over £50k a year, plus who knows what cash in the bank. I'd be surprised if they spend £15k a year. My mum always says how she didn't spend any of her FT wages and has never spent any of her state pension over the past 18 years because my dad gives her housekeeping. The only ladder he has ever built is one to go in the loft. 

....and yet, they had the toughest generation, had nothing and earnt £9 per week between them.

Maybe it will actually be the opposite, that each subsequent generation gets wealthier and wealthier, supported by the previous one. I'm spending mine!

I was born in 1950 so my parents were similar .
Never had a telephone never mind a mobile phone
Never had a freezer
Never had central heating
Never had a passport
Both lived long and happy lives ,i am the same ,retired at 65 plus and now coming up to my 75th birthday,in relative good health ,not rich but even though both my wife and i had lowish paid jobs we have a house and a car both paid for ,our state pensions give us about £24.5k a year BUT one thing we cannot have is a lower age
As others have said ,your time on this planet is unknown so enjoy it will you can because money cannot buy you extra years.  

Cobbler_tone

diveunderthebonnet said:

Cobbler_tone said:

OldScientist said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Agree with a lot of that but the world around investment performance and spending habits has TOTALLY changed. A few examples:

- My parents paid £1000 for their house. They never experienced 17% interest rates on their mortgage. From memory it was about £20 a month.
- They have never owned a £1,000 phone, I never had an Xbox and I am sure they would have rented their TV with 3 channels.
- We didn't grow up on jars of £3.50 baked beans from Waitrose. (they are really nice BTW)
- We never went on holiday abroad.
- No one from my family went to university, my children are the first.
- Cash was king and they never borrowed money. If you couldn't afford it you didn't have it.

My dad did national service and was a lorry driver for 40 years and combined with my mum (who worked FT for about her final 10 working years when we were grown up) have pensions of over £50k a year, plus who knows what cash in the bank. I'd be surprised if they spend £15k a year. My mum always says how she didn't spend any of her FT wages and has never spent any of her state pension over the past 18 years because my dad gives her housekeeping. The only ladder he has ever built is one to go in the loft. 

....and yet, they had the toughest generation, had nothing and earnt £9 per week between them.

Maybe it will actually be the opposite, that each subsequent generation gets wealthier and wealthier, supported by the previous one. I'm spending mine!

Never had a telephone

I remember we were one of the last on our estate to get a landline in the late 70’s. To this day it is the only bill in my mum’s name as dad didn’t want one! She must have wanted to gossip to her friends.
I set my dad up on a tablet though, so have IT to sort whenever I visit….i.e. close 100 windows down. 

SarahB16

Cobbler_tone said:

OldScientist said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Agree with a lot of that but the world around investment performance and spending habits has TOTALLY changed. A few examples:

- My parents paid £1000 for their house. They never experienced 17% interest rates on their mortgage. From memory it was about £20 a month.
- They have never owned a £1,000 phone, I never had an Xbox and I am sure they would have rented their TV with 3 channels.
- We didn't grow up on jars of £3.50 baked beans from Waitrose. (they are really nice BTW)
- We never went on holiday abroad.
- No one from my family went to university, my children are the first.
- Cash was king and they never borrowed money. If you couldn't afford it you didn't have it.

My dad did national service and was a lorry driver for 40 years and combined with my mum (who worked FT for about her final 10 working years when we were grown up) have pensions of over £50k a year, plus who knows what cash in the bank. I'd be surprised if they spend £15k a year. My mum always says how she didn't spend any of her FT wages and has never spent any of her state pension over the past 18 years because my dad gives her housekeeping. The only ladder he has ever built is one to go in the loft. 

....and yet, they had the toughest generation, had nothing and earnt £9 per week between them.

Maybe it will actually be the opposite, that each subsequent generation gets wealthier and wealthier, supported by the previous one. I'm spending mine!

Watching the news a couple of weeks or so ago reporting on the Australian election.  In the news report from Australia it referred to the high cost of housing in Australia and actually said this is the first time the younger generation will not be as wealthy as their parents.  I know this was referring to Australia but it was the first time I had heard it said on a news programme.  

I don't know if that has ever been said referring to the UK on a UK news channel.  Whilst I believe most people would think that I don't know if it has ever been said so bluntly and matter of fact over here when referring to the UK?  I know we hear reports of the average age of buying your own home being later but this was regarding overall wealth.  I know for a lot of people most of their wealth can be their home but do the UK news outlets ever say the younger generation (in the UK) will not be as wealthy as their parents?  

1957DfurdPensionist

Great to read @Cobbler-tone and @diveunderthebonnet reminiscing.  I am a late boomer, but my background is largely similar and the careful, frugal living ethic stuck with me too until I discovered stoozing in the 90s at about the same time Martin started writing about it ;-).  By then I had been first in the family to go to uni even though Dad said I should be getting a trade!  But Mum's elder sister's kids went so she had the casting vote!  So even before I was 18 I was given a Barclaycard by the bank manager as a cheque guarantee card.  Amazing  I didn't pay a penny of my own or parent's money to get the degree - on a full local authority maintenance grant.  I recall it was about £1,400 a year back then for me to buy books and to survive on toast and marmalade breakfasts, and salad sandwiches by the end of each year!   Maybe a pint or two of Fullers was imbibed along the way;-)

Conversely, my two kids look like they'll have paid £200,000 between them long before their 30 year loans "expire".  I guess at around age 30, they are top 2% of any pile at the moment with a good chance of continuing to smash it and enjoy life whilst doing so.  However, compared to most Student Loan Company shackled graduates, they are probably among the luckier ones. That is as long as they don't dwell too long on who profited from the disgraceful post 2012 Scheme2 interest rate regime they were suckered into at age 17 when we parents were told here on MSE to shut-up about loans and butt out.

They are second-half Millennials, and I do worry about them and GenZ longer term i.e. unknown mid to late career obstructions/burn-out and retirement if they ever get there.  I strongly remember a salt of the earth retiring branch office couple in about 1980 when I had barely started.  They were selling up and off to Torquay, but on that last day he held my elbow and said with a meaningful tone "Now then young 'un, please make sure you and your cohort keep this company in the manner we are accustomed, so they can keep paying our pension!".  It was a super non-contributory DB pension in thosedays.  The couple had each put in 40 years of graft to earn it.  I do hope they got 40 or more years out of it afterwards - I only put in 10 years to that one, but the power of compounding and some minor miracle means I hope to be soon tapping a decent wedge from the same scheme myself on an extra deferred basis.  As already said, DB is very much a rareity thesedays even with the biggest companies and the smartest recruits. We boomers feathered our nests alright, didn't we, if we did but realise, and worse than that, we kept going along with with the stupid low tax mantras from all sides at every election.

So although never a politicial beast, I really feel guilty and worry about who now will pay?

Cobbler_tone

SarahB16 said:

Cobbler_tone said:

OldScientist said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Agree with a lot of that but the world around investment performance and spending habits has TOTALLY changed. A few examples:

- My parents paid £1000 for their house. They never experienced 17% interest rates on their mortgage. From memory it was about £20 a month.
- They have never owned a £1,000 phone, I never had an Xbox and I am sure they would have rented their TV with 3 channels.
- We didn't grow up on jars of £3.50 baked beans from Waitrose. (they are really nice BTW)
- We never went on holiday abroad.
- No one from my family went to university, my children are the first.
- Cash was king and they never borrowed money. If you couldn't afford it you didn't have it.

My dad did national service and was a lorry driver for 40 years and combined with my mum (who worked FT for about her final 10 working years when we were grown up) have pensions of over £50k a year, plus who knows what cash in the bank. I'd be surprised if they spend £15k a year. My mum always says how she didn't spend any of her FT wages and has never spent any of her state pension over the past 18 years because my dad gives her housekeeping. The only ladder he has ever built is one to go in the loft. 

....and yet, they had the toughest generation, had nothing and earnt £9 per week between them.

Maybe it will actually be the opposite, that each subsequent generation gets wealthier and wealthier, supported by the previous one. I'm spending mine!

I don't know if that has ever been said referring to the UK on a UK news channel.  Whilst I believe most people would think that I don't know if it has ever been said so bluntly and matter of fact over here when referring to the UK?  I know we hear reports of the average age of buying your own home being later but this was regarding overall wealth.  I know for a lot of people most of their wealth can be their home but do the UK news outlets ever say the younger generation (in the UK) will not be as wealthy as their parents?  

I don't see it in general terms but no idea how you could measure it tangibly. In isolation you could pull out to say that people tend to buy their first home later. However, common sense would suggest that wealth generally tends to get passed down. 
The world continues to evolve and is very different to each previous generation. As kids, we wouldn't dream of paying £4 for a coffee and our local takeaway was a cheap chippy. Some people today pay a couple of quid to get milk and snacks delivered on an app.
Then there are regional differences. My nephew and his wife (late 20's) are 'career' people and live the London life, central London wedding etc. They must be pulling in c£200k between them and got on the ladder with a £450k apartment in Loughton. You can imagine how different the scenario would be if they grew up in Grimsby (no offence, great fish). 
Uni numbers are plummeting (see the various USS threads) and in my org (which is an average employer) the 20-30 something grads fill AD roles on six figure salaries, although I know that can be a rocky road for some. Having a qualification doesn't guarantee success!

Maybe where there is a growing gap is between those who have it all and those who have very little, as after all money attracts money.
I think Covid had a significant impact of those in their formative years and maybe that hasn't fully played out yet. My own daughter was in lockdown for her 16th and 18th birthdays and sat her first 'proper' exam at the age of 20.

So each generation is very 'different', faced with an ever changing world and different challenges to navigate. e.g. how many people thought you'd be sitting at home wiggling your mouse for a living 5 years ago? 
Make good decisions, work hard, be accountable and I think people will be OK.

Andy_L

SarahB16 said:

Cobbler_tone said:

OldScientist said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Linton said:

MetaPhysical said:

My friend's daughter recently died from a brain tumour aged 32.  My wife died 14 years ago aged 50.  An "average" number is exactly that.  Sure there are people who live to 100 and above and that's a wonderful thing, but those guys are outliers and they skew the figures to disguise a the dozens who didn't make it to 60.

Get retired ASAP that your circumstances allow is my counsel and I will be doing exactly that soon aged 58.

ISTM the worst situation is surely living long after your finances are exhausted unable to maintain your previous standard of living

I have genuinely never met or known of a person that this would apply to. Everyone I know has retired and got wealthier the older they get. I'm sure it happens though with some bad investment choices and fast cars.

Not forgetting that most people retiring in their 50's have the ability to pick up extra income if needed....or if they get bored.

The last 40 years or so have been relatively benign for 'safe' withdrawal rates. The worst cases for the US were in 30-year retirements starting in the mid-1960s and for the UK, those starting in 1910 or 1937! So, personal experience probably has an element of recency bias baked in.

DB pensions were not necessarily the panacea many people think. Pre-1997, many private-sector DB pensions had little or no inflation protection (minimum inflation caps of 5%, later reduced to 2.5%, were introduced around then). Inflation over the last 25 years or so, notwithstanding recent experience, has been relatively benign (a 'mere' doubling of prices) compared to the 70s and 80s, so even unprotected DB pensions would have been useful enough. I also note that level annuity rates back in the 1970s were very high (16% payout rates for a single life, male, at 65yo) - a function of both high yields and lower life expectancies - but annuitants would have been horrified at a single year real loss in income of over 20%.

While there has been an inflation uprating of the SP for inflation since the 1970s, the earnings link was removed in the 1980s and not reintroduced, through the coalition government, until 2010. While it may not be as generous as some would like, it at least forms a useful floor against running out of money even in poor markets.

Agree with a lot of that but the world around investment performance and spending habits has TOTALLY changed. A few examples:

- My parents paid £1000 for their house. They never experienced 17% interest rates on their mortgage. From memory it was about £20 a month.
- They have never owned a £1,000 phone, I never had an Xbox and I am sure they would have rented their TV with 3 channels.
- We didn't grow up on jars of £3.50 baked beans from Waitrose. (they are really nice BTW)
- We never went on holiday abroad.
- No one from my family went to university, my children are the first.
- Cash was king and they never borrowed money. If you couldn't afford it you didn't have it.

My dad did national service and was a lorry driver for 40 years and combined with my mum (who worked FT for about her final 10 working years when we were grown up) have pensions of over £50k a year, plus who knows what cash in the bank. I'd be surprised if they spend £15k a year. My mum always says how she didn't spend any of her FT wages and has never spent any of her state pension over the past 18 years because my dad gives her housekeeping. The only ladder he has ever built is one to go in the loft. 

....and yet, they had the toughest generation, had nothing and earnt £9 per week between them.

Maybe it will actually be the opposite, that each subsequent generation gets wealthier and wealthier, supported by the previous one. I'm spending mine!

Watching the news a couple of weeks or so ago reporting on the Australian election.  In the news report from Australia it referred to the high cost of housing in Australia and actually said this is the first time the younger generation will not be as wealthy as their parents.  I know this was referring to Australia but it was the first time I had heard it said on a news programme.  

I don't know if that has ever been said referring to the UK on a UK news channel.  Whilst I believe most people would think that I don't know if it has ever been said so bluntly and matter of fact over here when referring to the UK?  I know we hear reports of the average age of buying your own home being later but this was regarding overall wealth.  I know for a lot of people most of their wealth can be their home but do the UK news outlets ever say the younger generation (in the UK) will not be as wealthy as their parents?  

"Young 'to be poorer than parents at every stage of life'" (2015)
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34858997

"UK millennials are worse off than previous generations" (2023)
https://moneyweek.com/economy/uk-economy/uk-millennials-are-worse-off-than-previous-generations

MetaPhysical

My aunty is 97 and is as bright as a button and fully conversant on world affairs etc.  She's slowed down a bit, has more aches and pains and finds getting upstairs tricky but is otherwise fine.  She's been living off of her late husband's private pension for 30 years.  Contrast that to my wife and my friend's daughter who both died young.  There is no accounting for these seemingly random disparities that beset people.