… 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?

Badvoc I dont know what older people you know but the ones that I do Including my own parents and grandparents

Had no chance of going to university working class people like my family never got a chance to do that in fact my Sister was the first to go to Uni in our family
Had no final salary pensions
you do know that people who were born in the 50s cant retire at 60 in fact men were never able to retire at 60 it was always 65
Better home/life balance - you are joking my Mum often talked about her Dad having to work 3 jobs. My own Dad worked all the hours that God sent building up his business, we had no Holidays and very few days out when I was a child because my Dad was always working, and the only people I know who had jobs for life were people going into family businesses.

Bedraggles you are also missing one point.

When my Aunt and Uncle bought their flat in Clapham London they were renting in Clapham Junction, they could not afford to buy in CJ it was too expensive due to people priced out of Battersea who bought into the area, who in turn had been priced out of Battersea by people who could not afford Chelsea, even in the 80s there were areas in London that young FTBs could not afford - its nothing new.

Yet by 2010 Clapham which was a crime ridden dump when they moved there had become trendy and sought after, just like Chelsea/Battersea in the 80s yet this young man could afford to move there as a FTB, he could have bought a house for his 1/4 million in some parts of London but instead chose to buy in one of the most expensive areas.

My DH and I were helped by our parents to buy our house but the only reason we bought a house in the first place was that it was an opportunity too good to miss as we had the chance of getting it at a very reduced price, however if we had decided like so many people of our age to buy a flat and work our way up to a house then we could have done that with no help from our parents at all.

nagy who have summed that up better then I could

MrsDavidCaruso - but when your mum paid her NI there were many fewer pensioners than working age people, so the tax they paid in was enough to pay out again on pensions.

Now, there is a demographic bulge of baby boomers (hence the name!) so as they start retiring there will be many more retirees to be supported by fewer workers. There simply won't be enough money to give the baby boomers the pensions they think they are going to get (and for up to 30 years of retirement!) as well as funding the rest of the state, healthcare, roads, schools etc. Where do you propose we get the money from; thin air? It isn't a matter of There are a few options and it will probably be a combination of several of them. (a) raise taxes massively on workers (ie, you) to pay for it - possibly to tax levels not seen for generations. This is politically unpalatable for governments and how will already overburdened workers be able to pay for it? But tax rates will certainly have to rise by some amount. (b) reduce the entitlement pensioners get, so the value of pensions isn't maintained. (c) massive wage inflation (but then you also get (b). (d) massive population growth through immigration to grow the number of workers. (e) something as yet unthought of...maybe we all discover diamond mines in our back gardens and sell them all to Australia....

Why shouldn't baby boomers be told the plain truth that their pensions can't be afforded? Ironically if younger people were getting a better deal in life there might be a possibility of funding boomer entitlements in the future. Can't any of you "we had it just as bad" people on this thread see that it would be in your interests for young people to have it better than they currently do? Why the head in the sand? Do you just not want to face reality?

Anyway, all this thread proves is that no matter how much you try to explain economic reality, some people will just not listen. There are a wealth of statistics showing very clearly that (a) housing costs over 3x more in real terms (that's adjusted for inflation) than 20, 30, 40 years ago. You can see the massive bubble rise on any old housing graph you like. It is a fact, not a matter for debate. Yet people will still argue and argue that houses are no more expensive then they used to be. (b) there are also a wealth of statistics showing that the proportion of income and assets of younger cohorts has dropped markedly compared to previous decades - yet rather than believe this simple fact, people will prefer to resort to their own completely unfounded opinion and clearly mathematically fantastical assertions about young people being no worse off and wasting money on coffee and that's why they can't afford houses. It really is like banging one's head against the wall.

So much of what many people believe is completely unfounded and they seemingly will not take in any factual corrections to that. And I do wish people would RTFT - they are making the same claims which have been addressed earlier in the thread; eg. the previous existence of MIRAS or the fact that even though fewer boomers went to university, when you add in boomer take up of further education through colleges and polytechnics (now, of course, converted to universities), the number of boomers who have had some free tertiary education rises massively.

Mrsdavudcaruso- I said upthread that my dad went to uni as a married man- well, he was also working class. He left school at 16 to train in his dads trade. He just happened to be clever, and well read, and knew his subject , so he got a place at the age of 27.
This was a redbrick university, and Oxford might have been more dicriminatory, but the point is, in the 70''s and 80's all you needed was the brains and the will. Now you need 50k.

Plenty of working class kids ( and mature students) went to university in the post grammar school years.

Excellent post by the way Sloworis.

I can see both sides. Baby boomers got lucky. Our generation didn't. It would be nice if all baby boomers acknowledged their luck, but we know some people are entitled twats and it stands to reason that some of them will also be baby boomers. I'm jealous of their generation but they didn't do anything wrong: we would have taken the same opportunities if we were offered them I'm sure.

I feel lucky to have a job. We can't afford the same sort of house on two salaries that my parents did on one salary. Oh well. It means we have to adjust to less. The most worrying part for me: what will our children's generation have to deal with? House prices have already outstripped salaries. Debt is growing. Tuition fees will go up (we won't be able to afford them) I see the gulf between the haves and have nots growing, not shrinking. I'm seriously contemplating not having children because I think they will face hard lives unless they get very lucky. Sobering thought.

There simply won't be enough money to give the baby boomers the pensions they think they are going to get (and for up to 30 years of retirement!) as well as funding the rest of the state, healthcare, roads, schools etc. Where do you propose we get the money from; thin air?

Baby boomers who are still working (like me) will not be able to retire until they are at least 67 (possibly later if the goalposts move again). Do you honestly think most of us will then have 30 years of retirement?

Where do I propose the money comes from for funding healthcare, schools, roads, etc? Making the mega-wealthy pay the taxes they should, putting an end to the sort of nonsense that individuals like Philip Green and businesses like Starbucks and Amazon get away with.

Many of us baby boomers are parents to the generation that this thread is concerned about and are well aware of the problems they face and would do anything at all to help our children.

This thread is a model of the kind of divisive nonsense that plays right into the hands of politicians, who would do anything to divert attention from the fact that the rich/poor divide continues to widen.

Apatite1 - "I'm seriously contemplating not having children because I think they will face hard lives unless they get very lucky."

That is exactly what young people in Japan are doing. Japanese women in particular just deciding to say no to marriage or children. Their population is shrinking and will crash as old people die in even bigger numbers. It is also happening in Italy. Women again seeing no future in marriage and children.

In large part it is due to the dire economics of both countries.

Good post twofingers

I disagree MrsDavidCaruso. Twofingers post was not a good one. Particularly this:

This thread is a model of the kind of divisive nonsense that plays right into the hands of politicians, who would do anything to divert attention from the fact that the rich/poor divide continues to widen.

No. Just no. What you want is to silence those who speak. And if you do that, THEN politicians can really have a field day. This DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DIVISIVE. If boomers stopped burying their heads in the sand, and people like you stopped telling others to simply shut up and get on with life, then maybe - just maybe - we can all voice this concern together. Politicians would have no choice but to listen... and then, we might actually be all in this together.

What's the point of free speech if people tell us to 'just shut up, stop complaining and get on with life'. You see, I grew up in another country which is doing much better right now than the UK. I sometimes think it's because a lot of the older generation actually spares a thought for the younger generation. Elections were a lot more focussed on the LONG-TERM rather than 'what can I get out of this tomorrow'?

AND politicians do not necessarily play to the masses. Sure, they need to be re-elected, but sometimes they will make unpopular decisions. Luckily, the majority of the general public see sense after a few months of being annoyed when this happens.

MoreBeta, I see things going the same way in the UK eventually. I'm lucky in that I've never had a strong urge to have my own kids, coming from a large family and being blessed with many nieces and nephews. But I think it's very sad if economics limits the families of women who really want children. Sadly, I think this will become the case increasingly in the future.

I can only comment on my own personal experience of the generation above me, ie my parents and inlaws. And they all seem to have in common an inability to plan ahead for their retirement coupled with the notion that "someone else" will bail them out. Along with attitudes to hard work and long hours that simply would never keep them in the relatively well paid careers they enjoyed mind you maybe not as it was the public sector

Inlaws are wealthy due to somehow ending up with a massive house in a wealthy suburb despite FIL retiring early on a final salary scheme at 53. Since then, they have occupied their time with travelling the world, buying new vehicles and discarding them at massive loss a year or two later as not quite right in some way (6 at the last count, including various motorhomes) and ditto holiday homes abroad, while complaining that they are living on their pensions. When its pointed out to them that they could make savings in their lavish spending, the answer is "we've worked for it". I wonder if they are typical.

I can understand why someone younger who works in a good job but can't save enough for a deposit might treat themselves to a small affordable luxury like a daily coffee or a gym membership - theres little else to brighten their lives.

There seems to be no ability to forward plan for the future, but there seems to be an assumption that if you work a bit hard for a while, it will all be sorted out for you.

Removing student grants was bad enough but introducing tuition fees was just ridiculous, without extensive social impact studies on whether it would be beneficial to society or not - it won't be, it is already making society incredibly unequal, as now the best way to ensure a comfortable future is to not to work hard at school and uni and be reliable in a good job, but to make sure you are born to parents who have own a largish house and also to marry someone from a similar background!

Have to agree that we are a generation with everything. Phones, iPads, fancy tv's, 2 cars, stupid amounts of toys, holidays abroad, processed food.

I think my parents generation ( now60's) just did without. Yes they made on houses but I think they had a fair share of hardship. My mother can bore you with stories of being very poor, in her own childhood and in my own. She made nappies from old sheets. Can you imagine doing that now?

It seems very obvious to me that the standard of living has increased in ways that may seem invisible to their beneficiaries, well-documented on this thread (disposable diapers, holidays abroad, processed food).

That said, the housing market in the SE is in desperate need of an adjustment. I hope I get out before it comes.

I just wonder what is going to happen to house prices in the future? 25 years ago, DP's earned around £30k between them and bought a decent sized house for £37k. It is now worth around £250k.

DH and I earn around £70k between us and are only just getting onto the housing ladder.

Are prices just going to go up to a point where a bog-standard 3 bed house is worth millions?

It will be interesting to see what happens when interest rates rise.

25 years ago 30 k was a very high salary, what would that be in today's money? 100k plus? Enough to buy a 300k house...

30k between two people wasn't a particularly high salary just 25 years ago.

LessMissAbs is right. My generation DEFINITELY already thinks about the 'marriage economy'. Just like in the days of Jane Austen, many choose not to 'marry beneath'.

The kind of marriage that PiL have (Oxbridge grad & Sixth form dropout) does not exist amongst my circle of friends. All of them are uni graduates. Most of the girls have a Masters degree. A lot of the men even have PhDs. People consciously make the decision to not be with someone who doesn't fit this profile.

People from different backgrounds don't even socialise with one another. You tend to hang out at different bars and clubs. You have different hobbies.

And it's not just about whether you've been to uni at all. 'Which one' is becoming more and more important - not just among employers... which basically means you really filter out those who have a similar background to you.

You may not want to believe this - but sometimes, I do feel stuck in Jane Austen land.

USing an online calculator the equivilant salary would be from 70k to 98k. So a good salary really. One which would allow you to buy a house.

Do give over, Snowbells. No-one has told you to 'shut up' or tried to 'silence you', least of all me. Do not put words into my mouth please.

I notice you haven't engaged with the rest of my post suggesting that tax avoidance is bad for everyone in this country except for the very few people at the top who benefit most from it. Low wages, zero hours contracts, unpaid internships are a massive problem, which all impact negatively on people's ability to pay ridiculously high housing costs. Coupled with property being seen (not just exclusively by baby-boomers) as 'investment', rather than 'roof over head', we have a perfect storm.

Lily20again I don't believe that at all. Salaries haven't gone up that much.

Even if that were tru Lily-which I doubt-that would mean that , if you earned 85k betweeb you, you should be able to buy a decent sized house for around £104 k, based on angelos parents experiences 25 years ago of buying a house worth approx 22% more than their annual salary.
But you can't.(In most places)

Actually, i remember I had a boyfriend 15 years ago who earned 30k, and it was considered a pretty good salary, but not amazing, so I doubt that in 1990 30 k between 2 people was riches, and it certainly isnt the equivalent of 98k!!

Here is a depressing thought. 20 years ago, a schoolteacher told me that one should aim to earn 20k, because that was a decent salary.
I don't, quite, earn that, 20 years later.

It's not saying that salaries have gone up that much thou that would be good it's saying that 30 k then would be worth that now.

So 30 k then was a lot of money in real terms.

Yes the problem is salaries haven't gone up that much, and house went up a lot. I do remember when you could buy a little terrace house for 20k. Those same houses go for 80- 90k now.

I understood what you meant, Lily!
Computers costing almost five grand, loaf of bread for less than 50p and a litre of petrol for 41p!