Aibu to think that "suspended adulthood" is going to lead to large problems?

[BlancheBlue]

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/22/young-people-living-in-a-suspended-adulthood-finds-research

Just this really. There was a telling comment about this article with the ever increasing age profile of parents the chance of children knowing grandparents is going to be remote.

I think lots of the boomer generation really fail to understand this. Whenever it is said it is tough for young people que loads of "well I worked my arse off and owned a house by the time I was 21" type comments.

Trills Am I missing something or is that scheme skipping over large numbers of people who need this?

"low and middle-income households, typically earning between £35,000 and £45,000"

That word "households" and the numbers seems off to me. The low doesn't seem low enough and the mid doesnt seem high enough.
I on my own earn £23,000 so thats me on my own out. Me and my exBF would be £49,000 so thats slightly over. I wouldn't say that we were middle earners. So what about single people on low incomes, especially single parents?

Forgive me if I'm being thick

I have no idea how those numbers were figured out, I just thought I'd share what had been written!

I wish people wouldn't assume those who live in London are on mega-wages. I earn the national (not London) average. DH earns about 22K. We are both in our '50s and neither of us have jobs that pay a pension. I would consider 30K a good salary, even in London. The majority of young people who I work with (all have degrees from top universities) earn a lot less.

I hate this baby boomer vs young people fight. It's getting whipped up a lot.

It's going to be turned into the political capital that'll see us all without state pensions. Make young people hate old people enough and they'll vote for changes to state help for pensioners, or at least not oppose them.

There will probably be some nice temporary handout to sweeten the deal, like a government contribution to a house deposit. It will be very temporary. Or maybe just a promise that never materialises e.g. Pension savings of £350m a week could save our NHS kind of thing.

The link between NI contributions and pension entitlement has already been broken. First step in phasing out the pension altogether, not just upping the retirement age.

Nevermind tax relief on pension contributions going...

mumble why shouldn't younger people vote for a party that has policies that will help them?

The elephant in the room is interest rates.

I remember the days of 17%. They may not go up that far again, but we have to expect 4-5% at some point. That will have a massive effect on those who are heavily mortgaged.

I haven't read the whole thread but I'm pretty shocked by the stereotyping. I would put myself in the '(late) twenty something' category. I don't spend money out socialising or drink or on takeaway coffees thanks . I'm at work full time, I have children, my husband works full time. Who's got time to be out drinking?

The challenges we feel we face are 1, the incredible high cost of renting in our home town, meaning we are, according to the current system, able to afford to pay my landlord's mortgage and make him a profit, yet unable to afford our own. 2. the cost of a property is way out of wack with salaries. And I'm not talking about London, far from it.

I don't blame the baby boomers at all. They did they best they could with what they had for themselves. Who wouldn't? But I have experienced a lack of understanding from that generation (my parents) because the world is a pretty different place now. It would be nice to just be listened to I think. For those who judge to accept that you can't leave school with no O levels and walk into a job like my Dad did. My husband has a degree and works in a Fast Food chain. I respect him for doing what he's gotta do but my parents don't. They think he should just try harder. Try harder at what? Magicking up more jobs? I hold a management position and can't afford a mortgage on my salary. It's nothing to do with our attitudes. We are saving all we can, but we could save better if my earnings weren't lining my landlord's pockets.

I doubt that people will be working into their 80s as due to increasing automation and outsourcing, jobs will be far fewer.

With tens of millions of pensioners not owning their own house, the housing benefits bill will run into the billions.

Funny how the governments never seem to mention the above or how to deal with what will be a huge issue.

Because in a lot of cases the policies won't really help them Blanche.

Fine to vote for policies that will genuinely help end the wage/house price distortions this country has suffered from for the last 15 years, not fine to vote for policies that will hurt others that are disguised to look like they will help the younger generation but won't.

In the short term, promises will be broken, or the help that is forthcoming will only apply to a few people.

People who are young today will get old one day too. And if there is no state pension/help to save for a pension, well there will be plenty of poverty then too (even for those who scraped it together to buy somewhere).

So fine to vote for policies that will genuinely help, but not to fall for Divide and Rule 101.

I think they will deal with it by first restricting then phasing out housing benefit altogether Polar.

The 'plan' for dealing with all this is to roll back any type of state help to preWW1 levels if possible.

No NHS. No pensions. No benefits.

The basic problem is the housing shortage. We need to build some 6000 houses hereabouts to provide for people who share with their parents.. yet alone account for population growth and migration..

Yet our council is not planning to build anywhere enough houses. And whenever there is a housing proposal we get a NIMBY group.

Yes to housing shortage being a huge issue. But there's also a demographic crisis - the proportion of the population who are aged over 60 and over 80 is going to increase tremendously in most places in the next 20 years. That means that the base of tax payers that is needed to pay for the health and social care/pensions they need is going to dwindle, making the tax burden heavier on those of working age. In a lot of places, the plans for this are reliant on two things: firstly, migrant populations to boost the number of working adults; secondly, the release of equity from housing of those older people to pay for care and to free up stock for families. Both are, obviously, highly contentious in political terms.

The decreasing base of tax payers isn't necessarily a problem though - the tax payer base has fallen in relation to the number of retired people steadily since 1918, and yet we have all got massively richer since then.

So if productivity continued to increase in the same way as over the last 100 yrs then there could be enough wealth to support the retired population without hugely increasing taxation. A big 'if' I know, and it is complicated by increasing health care costs, but there is some basis for optimism! The improvement in living standards for all since 1918 in the UK has been immense despite that demographic change.

The effect of the release of housing if older people downsize and/or move into care homes is interesting - it should increase supply so be a downwards influence on house prices and rents. But on the other hand inheritance and lifetime gifts are fuelling house prices, so I suppose it will depend on what people do with their sale proceeds.

The trouble is that we are not in an era where we can expect economic growth any more, are we? There's no sign that we're going to stop bumping along the bottom any time soon...

I do see your point - it's hard to know though isn't it, because i doubt that anyone in 1916 would have predicted we in the UK would be so rich in 2016. To some extent it's unpredictable, because we don't know what people are going to invent! which is what tends to increase productivity. Or, on the other hand, what will happen to the oil price.

I appreciate we're on a shorter time frame than 100 yrs here though! - but it is interesting that many people assume that an increasing proportion of older people must be an economic problem when until now, we have continued to grow richer despite that.

I agree with you that there is a tendency to see older people as a burden - they are not, they are a resource and worthy of dignified and humane care. Some of the older people bashing really worries me.

I think it's not the proportion of people so much as the spiralling cost of health and social care - it is not simply a question of the numbers, but of the fact that people are living longer and have more complicated health and social care needs as a consequence (longevity and quality of life are not the same thing).

There is enough money to pay for care in many cases- it just involves some radical solutions like people leaving underoccupied homes to release stock and equity, and to move to more comfortable and appropriate accommodation. It will be politically very difficult to 'sell' those, however, in the current climate. We really need a kind of shift in our whole way of thinking about these issues.

Older people are a burden - ask anyone who has had to care for elderly parents! It's very difficult to take care of people whose health and independence are waning slowly but surely, but who are keen to hold on to any remnants of independence for as long as possible.

I don't mean to deny that it's terribly hard work for you and other carers, bobo

But there's also a demographic crisis - the proportion of the population who are aged over 60 and over 80 is going to increase tremendously in most places in the next 20 years

Those born in the 20s will have been through WW2, lived on rations, walked and cycled to work. They will live a loooonnggg time probably.

In the 40/50s many people smoked.... a lot.

In the sixties many still walked or bussed or cycled to work. But some also smoked, some took drugs, many drank alcohol. Wealthier so more likely to do there things imv.

So the straight line graph demonstrating the life expectany is not the case, there will be many blips.

What is changing is the number of drugs available and the possibility of a cure for many many illnesses.
My point is it isn't necesarily the oldies who are bankrupting us it is also the developments in care in the NHS across all age groups eg treatment for skin cancer, weight loss, eonset diabetes etc

The Institute of Fiscal Studies supports the idea that the younger generation really does have it harder.
Flat wages
Soaring house prices
Hollowing out of pensions

It's really not the mythical coffees and holidays.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37508968

I heard this on the radio. Maybe now certain posters will stop banging on about coffee and nights out.

I doubt they will, because the evidence has been available this whole time. It just suits them to run Millennials down because then they can pretend that they got ahead by their own hard work alone, and not by luck/historical accident/favourable macroeconomic circumstances. It's not an evidence-based position, it's an ego-based position.

It also means they don't have to deal with the guilt of the climate change legacy they are leaving for new generations to handle.