Boomer life according to the economist
Discussion
A lot of Boomers struggled with massive unemployment, redundancies and deindustrialization. It wasn’t social mobility that helped, it was literally mobility that was needed. Sometimes you just need to go where the decent work is. It’s not for everyone, but then it wasn’t back then either. Auf wederstein pet.
BandOfBrothers said:
Panamax said:
havoc said:
it's creating a bunfight over shrinking resources rather than a sense that we need to look after everyone's future.
I think the problem is the very large elephant in the room - population growth.There's no shortage of anything. There's an excess of people.
The issue is wealth inequality and in the UK the housing market plays a big part in that.
...and the UK (like the USA) has been pursuing wealth-polarising policies for far too long (whether deliberately or ignorantly).
yakka said:
A lot of Boomers struggled with massive unemployment, redundancies and deindustrialization. It wasn’t social mobility that helped, it was literally mobility that was needed. Sometimes you just need to go where the decent work is. It’s not for everyone, but then it wasn’t back then either. Auf wederstein pet.
And yet a lot also enjoyed "jobs for life" (or much of it) - something that's anathema to modern generations who'll face frequent "restructures" * and will probably have to completely reskill 2 or 3 times in their career....and at least the Boomers COULD move where the work was. Moving house now costs £££ in dead transaction costs, while trying to find a decent rental property is an utter bunfight anywhere where there IS work to be had. These are some of the hygiene factors that oil the wheels of society that Boomers don't necessarily appreciate are a pretty big obstacle for a lot of Millennials / Gen-Y / -Z.
* A friend working in financial services has seen their department 'restructured' (with job cuts) nearly every year for the 10 years she's been there. Doesn't imbue either loyalty or any sense of personal financial security. In my 20-smth year career I've seen / been subject to at least 6 or 7 at my various employers.
Conversely Boomers couldn’t work from home on computers. Some well paid work includes travel and accommodation so you can live outside the South if that’s an issue.
Yes housing is expensive but lots of us shared houses to keep costs down. There is often a way round problems, Richard Branson lived on a house boat, he seems to be okay.
Some Boomers were lucky with pensions, some not, some younger generations will be lucky with inheritance some not. Thems the breaks.
Yes housing is expensive but lots of us shared houses to keep costs down. There is often a way round problems, Richard Branson lived on a house boat, he seems to be okay.
Some Boomers were lucky with pensions, some not, some younger generations will be lucky with inheritance some not. Thems the breaks.
yakka said:
Conversely Boomers couldn’t work from home on computers. Some well paid work includes travel and accommodation so you can live outside the South if that’s an issue.
Yes housing is expensive but lots of us shared houses to keep costs down. There is often a way round problems, Richard Branson lived on a house boat, he seems to be okay.
Some Boomers were lucky with pensions, some not, some younger generations will be lucky with inheritance some not. Thems the breaks.
Any thoughts on what a society will look like where a lot of your wealth over your life is controlled not by how well you do at work, but by how much inheritance you get? That's pretty much where we are now, or getting close to it. Some lucky people (I'm one of them) can get well paying jobs that can get you to jump that boundary, but for most average people it's not possible (by which I mean anyone could in theory get a well paying job, but as a group not many can as there is not nearly enough of them, most people will earn around the average). Yes housing is expensive but lots of us shared houses to keep costs down. There is often a way round problems, Richard Branson lived on a house boat, he seems to be okay.
Some Boomers were lucky with pensions, some not, some younger generations will be lucky with inheritance some not. Thems the breaks.
NRS said:
yakka said:
Conversely Boomers couldn’t work from home on computers. Some well paid work includes travel and accommodation so you can live outside the South if that’s an issue.
Yes housing is expensive but lots of us shared houses to keep costs down. There is often a way round problems, Richard Branson lived on a house boat, he seems to be okay.
Some Boomers were lucky with pensions, some not, some younger generations will be lucky with inheritance some not. Thems the breaks.
Any thoughts on what a society will look like where a lot of your wealth over your life is controlled not by how well you do at work, but by how much inheritance you get? That's pretty much where we are now, or getting close to it. Some lucky people (I'm one of them) can get well paying jobs that can get you to jump that boundary, but for most average people it's not possible (by which I mean anyone could in theory get a well paying job, but as a group not many can as there is not nearly enough of them, most people will earn around the average). Yes housing is expensive but lots of us shared houses to keep costs down. There is often a way round problems, Richard Branson lived on a house boat, he seems to be okay.
Some Boomers were lucky with pensions, some not, some younger generations will be lucky with inheritance some not. Thems the breaks.
turbobloke said:
If thats the case doesn't society look like that now?
To some degree yes, but it's going to become much much worse as people with large houses bought cheaply 40 years ago and those with multiple houses die and pass that wealth onto their kids, while those people who's parents couldn't afford even 1 house get nothing. This isn't even a debatable point, inequality in this country is getting larger, and the main driver behind that is the difference between people who have (or who's parents have) houses/assets and those who don't. The rise of the BTL landlord over the last 25 years with a small number of people owning multiple houses, enabled by increasing house prices/leveraged borrowing, is exacerbating the situation and is extremely unhelpful for society.
I’m not sure inheriting a large sum improves your earning potential. Perhaps it may act as a disincentive to strive.
There is a lot to be said for making your own way in the world.
That said it is irksome when little Timmy starts bleating about the cost of things when you know he is minted from Daddy’s bequest.
There is a lot to be said for making your own way in the world.
That said it is irksome when little Timmy starts bleating about the cost of things when you know he is minted from Daddy’s bequest.
yakka said:
A lot of Boomers struggled with massive unemployment, redundancies and deindustrialization.
Between 2008-2013 I was made redundant three times. Each time I got a new job within six weeks, but at a reduced salary. By the end of 2013, I was earning 20% less than 2008. In all honesty, my parents had a better retirement than I will get. Better pension, retired earlier and more disposable wealth. They used to spend the whole of February somewhere warm like South Africa and even Australia on a couple of occasions. Plus during their working life, there was none of the expected unpaid overtime which I experienced. But that's the building industry for you.
Odd that economic growth is supposed to make us wealthier. I am not convinced.
Slow.Patrol said:
Odd that economic growth is supposed to make us wealthier. I am not convinced.
The real question is the definition of "us".The only time people at the lower end of the system managed to increase their share of the pie was when trade unionism was at its most militant. Unfortunately they then sat back and watched the pie go to waste.
Nowadays individuals like Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg seem to own half the world. Yet the postman strolls around our area at a gentle pace while the Amazon guys sprint up and down the drive. There's a message there somewhere.
Gary C said:
NRS said:
most people will earn around the average.
No s
t Sherlock !
It's very obvious, but it's more a counter to the typical comment of someone can choose a better paying job and so on. That does work for the individual, but not for most of society on average.
yakka said:
I’m not sure inheriting a large sum improves your earning potential. Perhaps it may act as a disincentive to strive.
There is a lot to be said for making your own way in the world.
That said it is irksome when little Timmy starts bleating about the cost of things when you know he is minted from Daddy’s bequest.
I completely agree, it wasn't the point I was making. It was saying the outcome of someone's wealth is far less guided by earning potential than inherited wealth these days. There is a lot to be said for making your own way in the world.
That said it is irksome when little Timmy starts bleating about the cost of things when you know he is minted from Daddy’s bequest.
Wages have stagnated and only match inflation for almost 2 decades (i.e. no real world pay increases on average for people working). Wealth has grown far more (house prices, assets like shares etc). What we tend to see now is more like this, take 2 people with equal jobs and ages:
Person A) Starts out life with house deposit as a gift from parents/grandparents. Starts paying mortgage off from 20yo. Pays it off in 25 years. After the first 5? years they have enough spare salary to start saving for a pension, so they have 40 years of pension saving. I think it's roughly for every 10 years earlier you start on your pension you can half the amount of savings due to compound interest? They also can save in shares earlier. Or use the capital in the house to buy a BTL at say 30yo.
Person B) No money from parents. Spends 10-15 years renting saving for a house deposit. All that rental money is "lost". Eventually buys a house at 30, but the house is say 30% more expensive that person A due to the 10 years delay. Spends 25 years paying it off but while doing so are using more of their salary on it because it was 30% more. Due to paying so much on rent they start pension saving 10 years later, and contribute less after 30 because more is going to pay for the larger mortgage. The same with shares etc.
Money early in your life has a massive impact on your final outcome, and what we're seeing is society is far less about the job you do and more about what kind of gift you get at the start.
yakka said:
I’m not sure inheriting a large sum improves your earning potential. Perhaps it may act as a disincentive to strive.
There is a lot to be said for making your own way in the world.
That said it is irksome when little Timmy starts bleating about the cost of things when you know he is minted from Daddy’s bequest.
Yes and no. There is a lot to be said for making your own way in the world.
That said it is irksome when little Timmy starts bleating about the cost of things when you know he is minted from Daddy’s bequest.
Inheriting a large sum doesn't improve your earning potential.
Having rich parents undeniably does.
If your parents are well off you have a house in a nicer area, less likely to be involved in crime, better schools, more opportunities for clubs and hobbies, increased chance of going to a Russel Group university, etc. The research is well proven that there is a direct link between parental wealth and your own earnings potential. Obviously there are exceptions, but in general it it indisputable.
EDIT - this is obviously part of the issue with rising inequality, in that it bakes it in for generations. You have 2 BTL houses, are likely doing quite well yourself, your kids go to decent universities, get good jobs, you can afford to give them a house deposit. Their kids do well, go to good schools, get a decent job. You die and pass down your wealth to your kids and grandkids, so they can then buy a house early in life, etc etc.
Edited by Condi on Friday 26th April 11:34
Slow.Patrol said:
Odd that economic growth is supposed to make us wealthier. I am not convinced.
Depends how you measure it. GDP is everything the country produces, via that measure we as a country are getting richer but in the last few years that has been mainly achieved by immigration (ie a larger population generates more output than a smaller population).
GDP per capita has been going down for years, and we (Brits) are getting poorer compared with countries we once considered ourselves comparable too.
I forget the exact number, but something like if the UK and Germany had had similar economic growth per person since the year 2008 the average Brit would be €7000/year better off. Exact numbers may vary, but something along those lines.
Edited by Condi on Friday 26th April 12:05
Condi said:
Slow.Patrol said:
Odd that economic growth is supposed to make us wealthier. I am not convinced.
Depends how you measure it. GDP is everything the country produces, via that measure we as a country are getting richer but in the last few years that has been mainly achieved by immigration (ie a larger population generates more output than a smaller population).
GDP per capita has been going down for years, and we (Brits) are getting poorer compared with countries we once considered ourselves comparable too.
I forget the exact number, but something like if the UK and Germany had had similar economic growth per person since the year 2008 the average Brit would be €7000/year better off. Exact numbers may vary, but something along those lines.
Edited by Condi on Friday 26th April 12:05
t's not that the UK has been steaming ahead.and not close to or in a minor technical recession, merely that the form of words 'since 2008' needs detail.when a particular sum is mentioned.
There are other factors worth bearing in mind when making the comparison, e.g. despite GDP differences, Germany has been lagging for years and is cumulatively way down on its NATO defence spending commitment, whereas the UK hasn't and has exceeded it (Poland also).
Condi said:
Depends how you measure it.
GDP is everything the country produces, via that measure we as a country are getting richer but in the last few years that has been mainly achieved by immigration (ie a larger population generates more output than a smaller population).
GDP per capita has been going down for years, and we (Brits) are getting poorer compared with countries we once considered ourselves comparable too.
I forget the exact number, but something like if the UK and Germany had had similar economic growth per person since the year 2008 the average Brit would be €7000/year better off. Exact numbers may vary, but something along those lines.
That depends on where you live in the UK. London actually outperformed Germanys GDP growth since 2008 - which is no mean feat given our correlation to Financial services. Our problems are - massive regional inequality / decline AND non-diversification of economy. Not that we don't have the capacity to generate growth.GDP is everything the country produces, via that measure we as a country are getting richer but in the last few years that has been mainly achieved by immigration (ie a larger population generates more output than a smaller population).
GDP per capita has been going down for years, and we (Brits) are getting poorer compared with countries we once considered ourselves comparable too.
I forget the exact number, but something like if the UK and Germany had had similar economic growth per person since the year 2008 the average Brit would be €7000/year better off. Exact numbers may vary, but something along those lines.
Edited by Condi on Friday 26th April 12:05
The problem boils down to other countries being polycentric and the UK isn't. London is pretty much one of the wealthiest places in the world, and its growing. Its has seen export of services grow 40% from 2016, and likely account for 30% of all trade in the next decade. That is going to create an epic gravitational pull of people in to it creating a scarcity of things like housing.
This is an imperfect graphic - for lots or reasons = but shows fairly well the scale of the problem.
OoopsVoss said:
That depends on where you live in the UK. London actually outperformed Germanys GDP growth since 2008 - which is no mean feat given our correlation to Financial services. Our problems are - massive regional inequality / decline AND non-diversification of economy. Not that we don't have the capacity to generate growth.
The problem boils down to other countries being polycentric and the UK isn't. London is pretty much one of the wealthiest places in the world, and its growing. Its has seen export of services grow 40% from 2016, and likely account for 30% of all trade in the next decade. That is going to create an epic gravitational pull of people in to it creating a scarcity of things like housing.
This is an imperfect graphic - for lots or reasons = but shows fairly well the scale of the problem.
I don't disagree with any of that, but the point still stands than as a country/on average the UK is doing very poorly for productivity. This has repercussions for government plans, tax take, etc etc. The problem boils down to other countries being polycentric and the UK isn't. London is pretty much one of the wealthiest places in the world, and its growing. Its has seen export of services grow 40% from 2016, and likely account for 30% of all trade in the next decade. That is going to create an epic gravitational pull of people in to it creating a scarcity of things like housing.
This is an imperfect graphic - for lots or reasons = but shows fairly well the scale of the problem.
London is only about 15% of the population, 85% of the country is not seeing the same increase in productivity.
OoopsVoss said:
That depends on where you live in the UK. London actually outperformed Germanys GDP growth since 2008 - which is no mean feat given our correlation to Financial services. Our problems are - massive regional inequality / decline AND non-diversification of economy. Not that we don't have the capacity to generate growth.
The problem boils down to other countries being polycentric and the UK isn't. London is pretty much one of the wealthiest places in the world, and its growing. Its has seen export of services grow 40% from 2016, and likely account for 30% of all trade in the next decade. That is going to create an epic gravitational pull of people in to it creating a scarcity of things like housing.
This is an imperfect graphic - for lots or reasons = but shows fairly well the scale of the problem.
"Without the capital" is being used to mean "If we lost the economic activity that we have centralised in the capital", of course.The problem boils down to other countries being polycentric and the UK isn't. London is pretty much one of the wealthiest places in the world, and its growing. Its has seen export of services grow 40% from 2016, and likely account for 30% of all trade in the next decade. That is going to create an epic gravitational pull of people in to it creating a scarcity of things like housing.
This is an imperfect graphic - for lots or reasons = but shows fairly well the scale of the problem.
OoopsVoss said:
Condi said:
Depends how you measure it.
GDP is everything the country produces, via that measure we as a country are getting richer but in the last few years that has been mainly achieved by immigration (ie a larger population generates more output than a smaller population).
GDP per capita has been going down for years, and we (Brits) are getting poorer compared with countries we once considered ourselves comparable too.
I forget the exact number, but something like if the UK and Germany had had similar economic growth per person since the year 2008 the average Brit would be €7000/year better off. Exact numbers may vary, but something along those lines.
That depends on where you live in the UK. London actually outperformed Germanys GDP growth since 2008 - which is no mean feat given our correlation to Financial services. Our problems are - massive regional inequality / decline AND non-diversification of economy. Not that we don't have the capacity to generate growth.GDP is everything the country produces, via that measure we as a country are getting richer but in the last few years that has been mainly achieved by immigration (ie a larger population generates more output than a smaller population).
GDP per capita has been going down for years, and we (Brits) are getting poorer compared with countries we once considered ourselves comparable too.
I forget the exact number, but something like if the UK and Germany had had similar economic growth per person since the year 2008 the average Brit would be €7000/year better off. Exact numbers may vary, but something along those lines.
Edited by Condi on Friday 26th April 12:05
The problem boils down to other countries being polycentric and the UK isn't. London is pretty much one of the wealthiest places in the world, and its growing. Its has seen export of services grow 40% from 2016, and likely account for 30% of all trade in the next decade. That is going to create an epic gravitational pull of people in to it creating a scarcity of things like housing.
This is an imperfect graphic - for lots or reasons = but shows fairly well the scale of the problem.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff