Boomer life according to the economist

[Steve H]

NickZ24 said:

ChocolateFrog said:

The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.

Lottery of life? Most people made it by halfway austerity.
If they'd spend on Starbucks, vacations, cars, and eating out as much as the current gen do well no wealth would have been there.

Absolutely.

Most of the contributions to this thread continue to ignore the fact that living "in poverty" today is considerably more luxurious than well-above-average used to be in the 50s/60s/70s.

Those lucky boomers that are doing ok today (and many aren’t) didn’t have it as nice as a current 25 year old does.

[OoopsVoss]

Panamax said:

cheesejunkie said:

OoopsVoss is talking macro economics and I'm no expert there.

Few people are, and it's all made up anyway. It's not as if scientific testing has proven the robustness of economic theories, which tend to change with time and place in any event. It's a bit like a preacher telling you "the Bible says". It might have been be relevant when it was written but time and circumstances move on.

cheesejunkie said:

I do know keep fking people over and you're going to get a reaction, it doesn't require any expertise to know that.

Hole in one.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it, or you think its "wrong" - its how the system is being played and it dominates the thinking of Central Banks etc. The system bounded, so behaviour is predictable if you understand their rules. The other problem is system complexity, most peoples understanding of economics is basic at best. Its also loaded with dogma and bias so they are missing the most obvious data points. The ways economies behave are a bit deeper than base rate does this inflation / growth does that.

[Condi]

NickZ24 said:

Lottery of life? Most people made it by halfway austerity.
If they'd spend on Starbucks, vacations, cars, and eating out as much as the current gen do well no wealth would have been there.

Steve H said:

Absolutely.

Most of the contributions to this thread continue to ignore the fact that living "in poverty" today is considerably more luxurious than well-above-average used to be in the 50s/60s/70s.

Those lucky boomers that are doing ok today (and many aren’t) didn’t have it as nice as a current 25 year old does.

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

Honestly, there is little point having this thread if you're just going to say that, it's categorically, provably, not correct. Also, in the same way you say life today is a luxury compared to when you were young, the same would be said of you in then 1950s vs your parents in the 1910s and 1920s. And the same would have been said of their parents in the 1880s.

[Steve H]

Condi said:

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

Honestly, there is little point having this thread if you're just going to say that, it's categorically, provably, not correct. Also, in the same way you say life today is a luxury compared to when you were young, the same would be said of you in then 1950s vs your parents in the 1910s and 1920s. And the same would have been said of their parents in the 1880s.

Laugh all you like but in relative terms housing is twice as expensive now but food is half the price, I posted up the research and evidence for that about 20 pages ago for everyone to selectively ignore while they sipped their grandé moccachoccas with cinnamon .



But avocados aside, the point of this thread is to discuss how hard it is for the younger generation and I’m just pointing out that in many, many ways, it ain’t so hard at all .

[NRS]

Condi said:

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

Honestly, there is little point having this thread if you're just going to say that, it's categorically, provably, not correct. Also, in the same way you say life today is a luxury compared to when you were young, the same would be said of you in then 1950s vs your parents in the 1910s and 1920s. And the same would have been said of their parents in the 1880s.

The young people spending lots on avocados etc are the ones who have got the big handouts from parents which is one of the big points people have flagged on here - millennials are being split between those who have parents who had a house(s) and those who don't. The ones with a big deposit from the Bank of Mum and Dad/ grandparents are doing far better at the same age than Boomers, those without are worse than boomers at the same age. So yes, you'll see a bunch of young people drinking expensive coffees etc, because they have far more spare cash. That's why some of us are flagging it as a big inequality issue and suggesting closing up IHT rules - which won't impact Boomers but their kids/grandkids so isn't anything to do with being against Boomers.

OoopsVoss said:

NRS said:

Where will that funding come from to pay for the big spending? It will in theory pay for itself but that will take a long time to come through, and worst case it fails again and you have spent even more.

You say talk of tax on boomer wealth (houses, IHT etc is not right, yet most wealth is concentrated in their generation - partly completely naturally as they have had their whole life to build wealth. But also because of the demographics and policies discussed previously that aren’t being repeated. So if we should not go after that wealth who is going to pay for the massive costs of levelling up across the country?

You have heard of debt, correct?

For the umpteenth time, the UK has one of the lowest debt to GDP burdens in the G7. It has borrowing capacity that others do not.

Depends on how you count it, UK debt to GDP is between 100-108% G7 average is around 125-130%.

As long as you spend it right and cut your cost base to help fund it, you can run high than history debt to GDP ratios.

And wealth is concentrated regionally, should we tax London more?

C'mon, lose the dogma and look at the world without prejudice.

I'm not looking at it with prejudice or dogma. Many of the stuff I propose would result in more taxes on me.

It's interesting that you flag the debt of other countries as a big risk in the system, and that the US is uncertain because it's basically past the tipping point of interest rates being payable etc. But apparently in this thread we should aim to copy the rest of them which you flag as concerning? I'm also absolutely not saying we should not invest in growth, but given how much debt there already is, how much extra money is needed to pay for a demographic pension issue and less workers the debt is already going to go up anyway, so there has to be focus on not hitting the same tipping point as if debt gets too high the extra future growth won't be able to pay for it.

OoopsVoss said:

By historical observation there is a monumental explosion of debt in the system which carries massive risk - but that in itself doesn't mean the system will fail. It might be the system is now too big to fail - so it won't be allowed to. It is indeed like the house price collapse people are still waiting on (as someone else mentioned).

Mind you, if people want some sleepless nights; this is the website for you:

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

It even has RoW (which is overstating the debt to gdp ratio's a bit due to calculation methods). The US national debt is increasing at around $1m a minute, which would be mind boggling a few years ago.

Its kinda funny that people think that gold, crypto or whatever magic will be a good hedge if that debt balloon bursts - you are in full and total society collapse. Although some of the dominating the stairs, German Malinois attack dog owning posters with a utility room full of 3 ply bog roll might emerge victorious.

[havoc]

Condi said:

NickZ24 said:

Lottery of life? Most people made it by halfway austerity.
If they'd spend on Starbucks, vacations, cars, and eating out as much as the current gen do well no wealth would have been there.

Steve H said:

Absolutely.

Most of the contributions to this thread continue to ignore the fact that living "in poverty" today is considerably more luxurious than well-above-average used to be in the 50s/60s/70s.

Those lucky boomers that are doing ok today (and many aren’t) didn’t have it as nice as a current 25 year old does.

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

Honestly, there is little point having this thread if you're just going to say that, it's categorically, provably, not correct. Also, in the same way you say life today is a luxury compared to when you were young, the same would be said of you in then 1950s vs your parents in the 1910s and 1920s. And the same would have been said of their parents in the 1880s.

Measured by "stuff", they're right - we now have ready and reasonably-affordable access to technology, equipment and even food that 2-3 generations ago just weren't there...or were a LOT more expensive. Most homes have central heating and double glazing. Cars are more reliable and (up until 6 years ago) were cheaper to buy in real terms if not necessarily to run. That part of life has definitely got better, but as you say Condi that has ever been the case throughout history.


Measured by "time" / "freedom", it's a lot worse
- unpaid overtime has become an expectation in a lot more jobs than it was 2-3 generations ago. Far more people lower down the food-chain are working 2 jobs, or have a "side hustle", just to pay the bills. And of course the default now is a 2-income family, whereas that was highly unusual when even Gen-X were growing up, so time for kids has reduced...and often is farmed out to someone else at a cost!
- there are a lot more laws now against actions that were previously either legal or just not worried about 40/50 years ago...not least significant limits on protesting.
- communities have largely fragmented - unless you've extended family locally, you're far less likely to be able to lean on your neighbours for help and support (e.g. childcare / odd-jobs). Because everyone has become money-focused and time-poor.*


Measured by money, as this thread has been focused on, then there can be no doubt - cost-of-living (a roof over your head, bills paid, food on the table) as a % of average income has gone up significantly.
Hence the NEED for 2 incomes, with all the consequent issues (childcare costs which many conveniently dismiss as "a choice", loss of spare time as housework, gardening, DIY etc. now needs to spill into evenings and weekends, consequent mental health issues due to "always on" or not feeling like a couple / a family properly).

'when I were a lad Yorkshireman-style' I would have said:

I remember as a young kid playing out of the front of my house with all the other kids from the street from (near enough) dawn to dusk. If we got hungry / thirsty we'd pick the nearest house and pester the relevant Mum for some food.

My kids? The nearest proper green space is a good half a mile away across 2 busy roads, assuming you ignore the canal that I wouldn't want them near unsupervised. There are kids in the street but not so many as I remember. And them seeing friends is something that for some reason needs to be organised now. Genuinely worrying about my eldest's mental health, and I'm not sure if that isn't part of it - his weekends, unless we prompt him or sort something out ourselves, are spent in his room or with us (when we have the time - see above).

[OoopsVoss]

NRS said:

Condi said:

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

Honestly, there is little point having this thread if you're just going to say that, it's categorically, provably, not correct. Also, in the same way you say life today is a luxury compared to when you were young, the same would be said of you in then 1950s vs your parents in the 1910s and 1920s. And the same would have been said of their parents in the 1880s.

The young people spending lots on avocados etc are the ones who have got the big handouts from parents which is one of the big points people have flagged on here - millennials are being split between those who have parents who had a house(s) and those who don't. The ones with a big deposit from the Bank of Mum and Dad/ grandparents are doing far better at the same age than Boomers, those without are worse than boomers at the same age. So yes, you'll see a bunch of young people drinking expensive coffees etc, because they have far more spare cash. That's why some of us are flagging it as a big inequality issue and suggesting closing up IHT rules - which won't impact Boomers but their kids/grandkids so isn't anything to do with being against Boomers.

OoopsVoss said:

NRS said:

Where will that funding come from to pay for the big spending? It will in theory pay for itself but that will take a long time to come through, and worst case it fails again and you have spent even more.

You say talk of tax on boomer wealth (houses, IHT etc is not right, yet most wealth is concentrated in their generation - partly completely naturally as they have had their whole life to build wealth. But also because of the demographics and policies discussed previously that aren’t being repeated. So if we should not go after that wealth who is going to pay for the massive costs of levelling up across the country?

You have heard of debt, correct?

For the umpteenth time, the UK has one of the lowest debt to GDP burdens in the G7. It has borrowing capacity that others do not.

Depends on how you count it, UK debt to GDP is between 100-108% G7 average is around 125-130%.

As long as you spend it right and cut your cost base to help fund it, you can run high than history debt to GDP ratios.

And wealth is concentrated regionally, should we tax London more?

C'mon, lose the dogma and look at the world without prejudice.

I'm not looking at it with prejudice or dogma. Many of the stuff I propose would result in more taxes on me.

It's interesting that you flag the debt of other countries as a big risk in the system, and that the US is uncertain because it's basically past the tipping point of interest rates being payable etc. But apparently in this thread we should aim to copy the rest of them which you flag as concerning? I'm also absolutely not saying we should not invest in growth, but given how much debt there already is, how much extra money is needed to pay for a demographic pension issue and less workers the debt is already going to go up anyway, so there has to be focus on not hitting the same tipping point as if debt gets too high the extra future growth won't be able to pay for it.

OoopsVoss said:

By historical observation there is a monumental explosion of debt in the system which carries massive risk - but that in itself doesn't mean the system will fail. It might be the system is now too big to fail - so it won't be allowed to. It is indeed like the house price collapse people are still waiting on (as someone else mentioned).

Mind you, if people want some sleepless nights; this is the website for you:

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

It even has RoW (which is overstating the debt to gdp ratio's a bit due to calculation methods). The US national debt is increasing at around $1m a minute, which would be mind boggling a few years ago.

Its kinda funny that people think that gold, crypto or whatever magic will be a good hedge if that debt balloon bursts - you are in full and total society collapse. Although some of the dominating the stairs, German Malinois attack dog owning posters with a utility room full of 3 ply bog roll might emerge victorious.

The issue is debt sustainability. The US can't fund its MediAid (so free health care for those without insurance) or its social security benefits within 10 years. They have a massive issue with sustainability - even if the individual States themselves hold a fairly high % of the total debt (lesson there in some ways to stop councils investing in windfarms instead of Gilts - for lower but safer yields). They also have a likely incoming Trump, who will could do a Truss on the economy.

Japan has a 250%+ debt to GD ratio, but ultra low rates and very high internal debt holding - factors like internal debt holding are important (the UK doesn't score that highly ono that metric).

Our closest peers are EU countries, France which is like our "sister", runs a debt to GDP ration around 110% vs 101 here, look at the issues they have politically with social cost reform and political militancy. Otolith suggests the same here - its quite possible, but we both have to embrace it. Both the UK and France have similar but a little different issues - but we have some manoeuvre room, trickier for them (especially as they are on negative downgrade and yields are looking towards Spain).

The whole point is, you can run higher debt burdens as longs as 1) servicing costs lower (so lower base rates and improved credit worthiness) 2) you spend it on growth. Most macro economists will tell you the biggest challenge for the UK is single regional concentration - its not polycentric to the detriment of the UK whole (I'm in London - but its shameful how most of thinking here views rest of UK).

[Hustle_]

cheesejunkie said:

...generally I don’t agree with the age divide war. It’s a bit divide and conquer.

Yep, bloody tired of the 'culture wars'.

If this thread is mostly about the affordability of property then we mostly have central government to blame for that.

[NickZ24]

Condi said:

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

Honestly, there is little point having this thread if you're just going to say that, it's categorically, provably, not correct. Also, in the same way you say life today is a luxury compared to when you were young, the same would be said of you in then 1950s vs your parents in the 1910s and 1920s. And the same would have been said of their parents in the 1880s.

Sure we have, still that did not influence (us) in our halfway austerity, needed to get a start-up capital.
Banking in the 90, last century, was not easier but it got things done. Not so today?
If you are in your comfort zone you wish to stay in it. That is how we are geared.

Edited by NickZ24 on Wednesday 8th May 15:29

[turbobloke]

Condi said:

Yes, lets ignore every single bit of research and evidence, and blame it on expensive coffee and avocados!

The day hasn't dawned when every single bit of research on anything, beyond the most facile level, says the same thing. Nor has the day dawned when anyone has seen and assimilated every bit of it. Clearly it's easy to forget some iota of it.

The blame game in any direction cannot be justified, no research is needed for such an obvious point while date of birth is beyond a person's control. On the day when humans not yet born can decide when they'll be conceived and then enter the world, have another try.

The day when politicians aiming to do something beyond vote themselves a pay rise, then go on to do it - and it has no unintended consequences - will be equally elusive.

All generations have the same reasons to JFDI & DYB, and several excuses not to.

[havoc]

turbobloke said:

Straw men and platitudes

Are you going to contribute something useful to the thread TB, as you seem to be ignoring the actual arguments being put forwards and instead keep debating against your imaginary problem and coming out with meaningless trite pseudo-Buddhist stuff.

[Scootersp]

Just a little back track to wealth inequality, from a place that has suffered a currency crisis, that has impoverished huge numbers but benefitted some others.

<<<thanks Borcy>>>>


So the people and governments are on the breadline, but some individuals are super wealthy, I found it interesting reading about the severe contrasts.

Edited by Scootersp on Wednesday 8th May 14:21

[borcy]

https://archive.ph/LyD0V

FT article from above

[98elise]

havoc said:

or in the case of the NCO who got out after 8 years - "Final" salary means based on the salary you left on. If you leave early, it's based on a low salary and a low fraction of that salary because you only put in 8 years service not 40

It was 8 years out of max 22 year career from age 18.

The pension is good if you make the full 22, but most didn't. None of my peers did (we keep in contact and attend reunions).

[havoc]

98elise said:

havoc said:

or in the case of the NCO who got out after 8 years - "Final" salary means based on the salary you left on. If you leave early, it's based on a low salary and a low fraction of that salary because you only put in 8 years service not 40

It was 8 years out of max 22 year career from age 18.

The pension is good if you make the full 22, but most didn't. None of my peers did (we keep in contact and attend reunions).

But that's only fair, surely?

...and besides, even getting out at 40 (with a host of transferrable skills in most instances) leaves someone with 20+ years to have a second career, with its own pension attached. Not something you can say to someone putting in 44 years in the private sector to find their entire pension is worse than the Armed Forces pension of the bloke next to them in the pub who served 22 and has since gone on to do even more work and build himself a chunky second pension pot on top.

As I said above - do the maths. Like-for-like, public-sector pensions are RIDICULOUSLY valuable to an employee. And increasingly (& ridiculously) unafforable to an increasingly-stretched public purse.

[NRS]

OoopsVoss said:

The issue is debt sustainability. The US can't fund its MediAid (so free health care for those without insurance) or its social security benefits within 10 years. They have a massive issue with sustainability - even if the individual States themselves hold a fairly high % of the total debt (lesson there in some ways to stop councils investing in windfarms instead of Gilts - for lower but safer yields). They also have a likely incoming Trump, who will could do a Truss on the economy.

Japan has a 250%+ debt to GD ratio, but ultra low rates and very high internal debt holding - factors like internal debt holding are important (the UK doesn't score that highly ono that metric).

Our closest peers are EU countries, France which is like our "sister", runs a debt to GDP ration around 110% vs 101 here, look at the issues they have politically with social cost reform and political militancy. Otolith suggests the same here - its quite possible, but we both have to embrace it. Both the UK and France have similar but a little different issues - but we have some manoeuvre room, trickier for them (especially as they are on negative downgrade and yields are looking towards Spain).

The whole point is, you can run higher debt burdens as longs as 1) servicing costs lower (so lower base rates and improved credit worthiness) 2) you spend it on growth. Most macro economists will tell you the biggest challenge for the UK is single regional concentration - its not polycentric to the detriment of the UK whole (I'm in London - but its shameful how most of thinking here views rest of UK).

I'm not sure how we compare to France on it, but I know we have more debt which is not fixed interest rates, and will cost us more if rates stay relatively high to where they were. You also have to try and avoid doing a Truss and blowing the market confidence. I'd still also be very careful given how the debt issue will grow given the underfunding of healthcare/pensions, the demographics show that will increase a lot from here still, unless we change something.

havoc said:

turbobloke said:

Straw men and platitudes

Are you going to contribute something useful to the thread TB, as you seem to be ignoring the actual arguments being put forwards and instead keep debating against your imaginary problem and coming out with meaningless trite pseudo-Buddhist stuff.

Lots of those don't read what is posted. A lot of what is posted is not raging against one generation and saying they can help when they are born etc. It's not even saying we should suddenly change things and tax them loads. As I said before, closing IHT rules would have no impact on the boomers - if anything it means they have a better time personally as they will more likely spend the money themselves instead of holding onto it to pass onto their kids tax free increasing equality for their kids/grandkids (NOT Boomers). The arguments are saying we need to move growth from focusing on London so much, change tax rules to try and free up more housing, and be aware we need to look at healthcare/pension funding given how big a cost it will be from the government budget. Some of this pain will need to be taken by younger generations, but can we do more to spread it more equally and do a better job in the future?

In the same way those policies that we could do now would need to change in future as demographics and economies change.

Ignoring what is being said is why people get annoyed and then start getting angry which tends to make things worse.

[borcy]

havoc said:

But that's only fair, surely?

...and besides, even getting out at 40 (with a host of transferrable skills in most instances) leaves someone with 20+ years to have a second career, with its own pension attached. Not something you can say to someone putting in 44 years in the private sector to find their entire pension is worse than the Armed Forces pension of the bloke next to them in the pub who served 22 and has since gone on to do even more work and build himself a chunky second pension pot on top.

As I said above - do the maths. Like-for-like, public-sector pensions are RIDICULOUSLY valuable to an employee. And increasingly (& ridiculously) unafforable to an increasingly-stretched public purse.

The bloke in the pub may well have not done a Like-for-like job in the above example.

[havoc]

borcy said:

The bloke in the pub may well have not done a Like-for-like job in the above example.

By not being a soldier? Think you're splitting hairs there...

What about all the mechanics and engineers in the Armed Forces. Or the logistics guys? Medics? Administrators? The Army has a very big tail behind the guys at the sharp-end...

[Panamax]

There's a very good reason why Parliament fails to rein in the continuing, unaffordable generosity of public sector pensions. It's that MPs have awarded themselves the most generous public sector pensions of all!

MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.

[NickZ24]

Panamax said:

There's a very good reason why Parliament fails to rein in the continuing, unaffordable generosity of public sector pensions. It's that MPs have awarded themselves the most generous public sector pensions of all!
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.

In Germany a member of Parlament needs to serve 27 years. A minister only needs 2 years to collect about 50%
Source: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/ruhegehalt-bun...

The very problem of any system is that it serves the system. So you need to grease those bearings to make it run smooth.