… to think that no one wants to speak up for the younger generation?

[SnowBells]

I don't know what it is. Maybe political correctness gone mad.

Pensioners who are already wealthy get winter fuel allowance, etc. Each time this kind of stuff gets mentioned on things like Question Time or something, people shout and whistle, showing complete disregard for the subject, and no real debate can happen.

I am not talking about the pensioners who aren't well off. But a huge proportion of pensioners did profit from the higher house prices - something not likely to happen for the younger generation.

Our kids have to pay to go to uni. My generation will retire much, much later. We also have to pay for inflated house prices.

And yet, there will be people who say 'but we've paid our taxes'. Well, we pay taxes and our kids will, too, but we are likely to get A LOT less back. I just feel there's a huge generational wealth divide. And I wonder why no one wants to discuss this properly? Why do people want to stop a debate before it has even had a chance to happen?

Everyone will die. Your legacy is the next generation. So why not speak up for what essentially will be your only legacy?

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

oh and if we has not had the global financial crisis (caused by misunderstood risk in complex financial products) we would not have has reduced tax take, austerity and pension funding concerns.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

we all kicked the can down the road on this topic.

if voters cared enough about sorting this out years ago, politicians would have cared.

[merrymouse]

Nope, I'm still having trouble pinning the financial crisis on my mother in law, a retired lab assistant from cardiff who went to greenham common. She did bank at the co-op though. Clearly her influence was wide reaching.

[MoreBeta]

I agree it should not be linked to house prices but the banks are as obsessed with property as everyone else. Its why the Govt and Bank of England are terrified of house prices falling - every loan in the banks' loan books is secured against property.

The whole idea of getting small business lending going with special funding is NOT about lending to small businesses at all its just another way of funnelling cash to the banks so they can fund their existing loan books - all backed by property.

The boomers caused this financial crisis. Lets just be clear on that. No one else.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

but that whole concept of using house price equity gains to fund spending or investments is very flawed.

and I am not really that sure of using personal money to finance a business. I run my own business and started very small and made a profit and put that back in the business.

I don't think it is pulling the rug from young people, but stopping dong something stupid.

the success of uk business should not be linked to house price rises.

[MoreBeta]

Vickiy - if your Dad needed to borrow money to fund his business he probably would have struggled to get a loan at all without the equity in his house. Banks don't lend to small businesses - they lend against the property the business owner lives in. They do not 'back small businesses' at all. It is just mortgage lending really.

I had a weird experience a few years back of going to a Franchise business exhibition and listening to a presentation from one of the big high street banks. the regional head of business lending was enthusing about how they liked to lend to owners of franchise businesses as they had such a high success rate, blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, I went to see the regional manager afterwards and asked if he would lend me any money to buy a regional or national franchise. First thing he said was "Have you got a property?"

He wasn't in the least interested in a business plan or anything. Only if I had a property to borrow against. I said no but I have got the money to do it anyway. I just wanted to see if you meant what you said.

The fact is many young people will never get to found their own business if they don't have any equity in property. It is the keystone to all small and medium sized business lending. Yet another example of how the rug has been pulled from under young people with ambition.

[Kendodd]

The country needs checkout workers, bin men, cleaners, junior office admins, and other low paid work. There seems to be a certain culture of blaming those not capable as being feckless and they should get off their arse educate themselves and get better paid work.

I completely agree, somebody has to do these jobs and they should be valued. IMO anybody with a full time job should be able to afford somewhere to live, sadly this isn't the case.

[Vickiyumyum]

In terms of housing and affordability, my parents gave us a wedding gift of £3000 this was 10% deposit on our first property. To give my dc a 10% deposit to enable them to get a mortgage, I'd need to gift them in excess of £20,000 even for a small starter place.

Its not always possible to just move area to get affordable housing, often the areas with affordable housing are areas of higher unemployment. The north isn't necessarily cheaper than the south east, Areas of Yorkshire are just as high as Berkshire where I am now. Also some areas of Manchester are as expensive etc.

I'm really unsure of the answer. A lot has to do with the housing boom. I currently rent and earn a good salary (37yr old and salary circa 60k) but its still not enough to buy a family sized house here in the south east. Yes my fault for divorcing and having 4 dc maybe.

I do worry for my dc, not everyone is capable of going to university and earning large incomes. The country needs checkout workers, bin men, cleaners, junior office admins, and other low paid work. There seems to be a certain culture of blaming those not capable as being feckless and they should get off their arse educate themselves and get better paid work. Whilst we still have the mentality of each family unit needs its own house, children needing own rooms etc, so no point taking low paid jobs, then the problem is going to get worse not better as people who's culture is of sharing households and living communally are more able to accept low paid work.

My parents, my dad has had his own business for as long as I can remember, they live in a large house mainly paid or by the equity from the housing boom. They can't see that this boom, that has enabled them (along with my dads relatively successful it business, but mainly equity) o jump so high up the ladder with their paid for £750k house. My mum still moans that so and so over the road has had 5 holidays this year and shes only had 4! She's not worked since 21, a year after getting married and having first dc (me). She still complains that she won't get her state pension for years yet because the age has risen.

[Wishihadabs]

I'm not sure I agree. My parents are 64 and 66 (born 47&49) both retired. Their parents lived to 94,88,86 and 61. I think being alive in the 2000s give you a higher life expectancy not being younger. I should think they both have 25 years left. I don't think that I'm going to live longer than them, I thought I read that life expectancy will fall with the obesity epidemic.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

if you are older, you bought a house more cheaply.
but on average you will die at a younger age and are more likely to die from illnesses that younger people will be cured of.

so neither group wins. its just different times. progress and the cost of progress.

[Morgause]

Statistics can easily be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. It depends who is doing the manipulation.

[merrymouse]

People cannot afford to get on the housing ladder (regardless of age) because there is a housing crisis. This has nothing to do with their age or how much coffee they buy. The problem is caused because demand exceeds supply and employment is concentrated in certain areas. Equally you will find that people living outside the south east cannot afford to move there for work.

Reports about people in their 20's only spending 45% of their income on necessities (as opposed to all those people young and old who spend 100% of their income on necessities) doesn't do anything to help any body's cause.

Although Jeremy Vine might do an item on it - lots of scope for a dust up.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

what merrymouse and morgause said

and I am a 40 yo generation Xer not a baby boomer.

[traininthedistance]

So explain how the source is unreliable? Both of those reports give a very clear source an methodology for their data - taken from the Office for National Statistics. As an economic historian they look pretty sound to me. But yes, let's dismiss them as "unreliable" simply because they don't fit personal opinion. FWIW there are plenty of similar conclusions being drawn by other bodies, from the CBI and IoD to left liberal think tanks such as the Joseph Rowntree foundation. The last big independent pensions report chaired by Adair Turner came to even grimmer conclusions. Shame the ONS and OECD stats are so "unreliable" though, hey

[Morgause]

I've already said both my DCs are in the generation you speak of and both are buying their own houses and so are a lot of their friends. Far too much generalisation here.

Not all boomers are greedy and stinking rich and not all in the younger generations are struggling.

Data can be ignored when the source is unreliable.

[traininthedistance]

Ah okay, so the data can just be ignored? Righty ho. Back to the coffees it is. All those young people spending all that money on luxuries, that's why they can't afford houses, boomers had it worst, 15% interest rates blah blah. Normal service resumed....

[merrymouse]

"There's a lot of outrage here from the boomers on the thread, but no response to any hard data"

I always thought of myself as a member of 'Gen X', but probably in common with some of the Boomers I listen to Radio 4 quite a bit and 'More or Less' has made me cynical about 'Hard Data'. I'd have to run those stats by Tim Harford before I took them seriously.

Report produced by 'the intergenerational foundation - fairness for future generations' you say? hmmm….

[traininthedistance]

And here's some more data on spending trends by age group, showing rather conclusively that it is not young people who are the ones living the luxury lifestyles (the amount spent by boomers on cars is particularly noteworthy, new cars being rather more expensive and luxurious objects than takeaway cappuccinos):

www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Spending-Power-Across-the-Generations-Report.pdf

[Morgause]

Sorry, Merry, it didn't seem that nonsensical in the context of what Northeast is saying, it chimed in so well.

[traininthedistance]

There's a lot of outrage here from the boomers on the thread, but no response to any hard data. Any willingness to look at some of the charts of changes in different age-groups' pay and expenses 1997-onwards in this report?

www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Squeezed-Youth_Final.pdf

"The pay gap between the over 50s and under 21s has ballooned by 50% in the past decade and a half, while people in their 20s have seen rents rise by more than a third, according to the report from the Intergenerational Foundation (www.if.org.uk). The study also found that consumption on essentials, such as housing, fuel, power, food and transport, now accounts for 45% of a 20 something's annual household expenditure, an increase of 7% since 2001/2, more than for households in any other age group. Much of this increase is down to housing costs with "Generation Rent" having to cope with average rent increases of 35% between 2001/2 and 2012.

The squeeze on incomes means younger generations are spending nearly 20% less on clothing and footwear than they were in 2007, 15% less on travel, 18% less on alcohol and smoking, 12% less on recreation and culture and 10% less on eating out or staying at hotels .

The over 65s, by contrast, are spending nearly 20% more on eating out and hotel stays, 5% more on alcohol and cigarettes, 5% more on recreation and culture, 7% more on food and non-alcoholic drinks, and 5% more on clothing and footwear."

Seems it's not the youth of today who are buying all those expensive coffees.

[merrymouse]

Morgause, sorry it wasn't clear. I was indeed being sarcastic and silly and childish and I agreed with your point.

However, Northeast I think the idea that there is a homogenous political class of 'baby boomers' who had it all and are deliberately trying to screw the next generation is very silly indeed. On the other hand, it isn't surprising that there is money to be made selling this theory - there hasn't been a time in history when people didn't feel a bit cheesed off about something and looked for somebody else to blame.

[northeastofeden]

I think that merry was probably being sarcastic.

[Morgause]

No but Morgause, were those miners burdened by student loans? NO!!!

So they had it coming, then? Serves them right for being baby boomers. They deserve to live in poverty because of when they were born. They had no choice. Students today choose to take on loans and if they choose to do useless degrees at rubbish universities and then can't get jobs that's the fault of the baby boomers as well.

This thread is taking a Monty Python turn. It's getting too silly.

[northeastofeden]

twofingers morgause's post was directed at me. Furthermore I can't see any one suggesting euthanasia as being a good option. Why not let morgause fight their own battles.

merry you obviously haven't read the book, it is only intro material and I thought it appropriate for some of the posters. Your response is pretty childish.

I've said before I don't hate the boomers, but as a political class they have screwed over the next generation. I do think they should take resposibility for that and maybe help fix the problems they have created.

[merrymouse]

No but Morgause, were those miners burdened by student loans? NO!!!

It's like the Jilted Generation book says

"Born after September 1979? Struggling to find a decent job, even though you're a graduate? Can't afford to buy or even rent a house? No prospects? Welcome to the jilted generation."

Because like back then nobody EVER had this stereotype of young people as never listening because they were always wearing headphones, because Steve Jobs (evil boomer) hadn't invented anything and like you could sack a woman when she got pregnant, so 50% of the population could have avoided zero hour contracts if they had them back then, which, fact, are an invention of boomer over lords and are never given to people in their fifties and only graduates born AFTER 1979.

It's like OMG!