Boomer life according to the economist
Discussion
havoc said:
Because their gains are far from all down to "hard work" (across the generation or two we're talking about) - a lot is down to luck - luck in terms of when born, in terms of where born (those in the SE or 'posh' bits up north have gained far more than those in old mining/manufacturing towns, for example), and in terms of the prevailing government policies when they were the ones best able to take advantage of them. Granted they DID work hard, and they would have had to take at least some of the opportunities presented to them. But it's like Donald Trump claiming to be a business genius - it's very visibly misguided and egotistical.
...and also because so many of them, rather than acknowledging that luck, talk down to the younger generations telling them to work harder and spend less. Both MAY be valid observations, but those punching down neglect to do their sums and recognise that working harder and spending less will, for your average Gen-Y, make up only a fraction of the gap they need to close.
I suspect you're right though, and the press are trying to twist it into more of a generational conflict than it really is, all to deflect from the truth that the "Have's" have far more now and will have even more going forwards, while the "Have Not's" are pretty much screwed and stuck with their lot for the next couple of generations at least. After all, who owns all the mainstream media...
I don't resent my parents for their success or their (large but in the wrong neighbourhood) house. But I do despair of my dad when he comes out with all these Daily Mail cliche's and criticises younger generations that he's no direct experience with (he retired early 15-20 years ago) and zero understanding of. I am also a little pissed off that instead of properly investing all his spare money (or at the very least spending it on him and Mum and doing something nice for a change!) he left it sitting in long-term savings doing very little, but that's a personal matter and one I've long since learned not to broach...
Good post and I won’t dilute it by saying too much but talking down the young is a superb point (I’m not young)....and also because so many of them, rather than acknowledging that luck, talk down to the younger generations telling them to work harder and spend less. Both MAY be valid observations, but those punching down neglect to do their sums and recognise that working harder and spending less will, for your average Gen-Y, make up only a fraction of the gap they need to close.
I suspect you're right though, and the press are trying to twist it into more of a generational conflict than it really is, all to deflect from the truth that the "Have's" have far more now and will have even more going forwards, while the "Have Not's" are pretty much screwed and stuck with their lot for the next couple of generations at least. After all, who owns all the mainstream media...
I don't resent my parents for their success or their (large but in the wrong neighbourhood) house. But I do despair of my dad when he comes out with all these Daily Mail cliche's and criticises younger generations that he's no direct experience with (he retired early 15-20 years ago) and zero understanding of. I am also a little pissed off that instead of properly investing all his spare money (or at the very least spending it on him and Mum and doing something nice for a change!) he left it sitting in long-term savings doing very little, but that's a personal matter and one I've long since learned not to broach...
cheesejunkie said:
havoc said:
Because their gains are far from all down to "hard work" (across the generation or two we're talking about) - a lot is down to luck - luck in terms of when born, in terms of where born (those in the SE or 'posh' bits up north have gained far more than those in old mining/manufacturing towns, for example), and in terms of the prevailing government policies when they were the ones best able to take advantage of them. Granted they DID work hard, and they would have had to take at least some of the opportunities presented to them. But it's like Donald Trump claiming to be a business genius - it's very visibly misguided and egotistical.
...and also because so many of them, rather than acknowledging that luck, talk down to the younger generations telling them to work harder and spend less. Both MAY be valid observations, but those punching down neglect to do their sums and recognise that working harder and spending less will, for your average Gen-Y, make up only a fraction of the gap they need to close.
I suspect you're right though, and the press are trying to twist it into more of a generational conflict than it really is, all to deflect from the truth that the "Have's" have far more now and will have even more going forwards, while the "Have Not's" are pretty much screwed and stuck with their lot for the next couple of generations at least. After all, who owns all the mainstream media...
I don't resent my parents for their success or their (large but in the wrong neighbourhood) house. But I do despair of my dad when he comes out with all these Daily Mail cliche's and criticises younger generations that he's no direct experience with (he retired early 15-20 years ago) and zero understanding of. I am also a little pissed off that instead of properly investing all his spare money (or at the very least spending it on him and Mum and doing something nice for a change!) he left it sitting in long-term savings doing very little, but that's a personal matter and one I've long since learned not to broach...
Good post and I won’t dilute it by saying too much but talking down the young is a superb point (I’m not young)....and also because so many of them, rather than acknowledging that luck, talk down to the younger generations telling them to work harder and spend less. Both MAY be valid observations, but those punching down neglect to do their sums and recognise that working harder and spending less will, for your average Gen-Y, make up only a fraction of the gap they need to close.
I suspect you're right though, and the press are trying to twist it into more of a generational conflict than it really is, all to deflect from the truth that the "Have's" have far more now and will have even more going forwards, while the "Have Not's" are pretty much screwed and stuck with their lot for the next couple of generations at least. After all, who owns all the mainstream media...
I don't resent my parents for their success or their (large but in the wrong neighbourhood) house. But I do despair of my dad when he comes out with all these Daily Mail cliche's and criticises younger generations that he's no direct experience with (he retired early 15-20 years ago) and zero understanding of. I am also a little pissed off that instead of properly investing all his spare money (or at the very least spending it on him and Mum and doing something nice for a change!) he left it sitting in long-term savings doing very little, but that's a personal matter and one I've long since learned not to broach...
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/this-is-t...
It's stretching things to claim even in a 'good post' that e.g. people benefiting from house price rises don't know it and/or don't acknowledge it. The claim is no more than another attempted group smear.
turbobloke said:
It's stretching things to claim even in a 'good post' that e.g. people benefiting from house price rises don't know it and/or don't acknowledge it. The claim is no more than another attempted group smear.
You've really got skin in this one TB, haven't you - taking all this very personally....and no, it's not a smear - it's fact. Boomers, in aggregate, appear to (!) refuse to acknowledge that affording a house now is substantially more difficult than it was 20/30/40/50 years ago. And they also appear to wilfully ignore the fact that the house-price (real terms) growth that they've enjoyed (more than any other generation - another fact) cannot continue and won't be replicated for younger generations. According to them there's always a fix if someone works harder / saves more / "we didn't have it easy either y'know sonny"...
I'm not suggesting that Gen-Y / -Z are immune from fault. But that's not what this post is about, and trying to defend Boomers by saying that younger generations aren't perfect is EXACTLY what the rest of us are talking about.
havoc said:
I'm not suggesting that Gen-Y / -Z are immune from fault. But that's not what this post is about, and trying to defend Boomers by saying that younger generations aren't perfect is EXACTLY what the rest of us are talking about.
If he actually read the link he posted he would have understood that all young people are self absorbed and that they grow out of it as they age. It's no surprise that the current youngsters are self absorbed, as were young people 100 years ago. It's also no surprise that a generation which grew up with camera phones, instagram and facebook are self absorbed and aware of their own image in a way which TurboWaffle's generation wasn't. Back when he was young you had to take the glass plate to the darkroom for processing to see your selfie!! Condi said:
If he actually read the link he posted he would have understood that all young people are self absorbed and that they grow out of it as they age. It's no surprise that the current youngsters are self absorbed, as were young people 100 years ago. It's also no surprise that a generation which grew up with camera phones, instagram and facebook are self absorbed and aware of their own image in a way which TurboWaffle's generation wasn't. Back when he was young you had to take the glass plate to the darkroom for processing to see your selfie!!
Would ankle be allowed on them pics? 
To be fair to Turbo, I could do the ok boomer meme, but he makes the odd good point.
Bottom line my view is that it's not an intergenerational war. It's a divide created by boomers' voting choices and it's getting worse. It can't continue so address it early or address the consequences. The last time the wealth divides we are facing into were normal there was no democracy. Everyone can vote now. The impending divide will be the massive wealth difference between inheritance and lack of inheritance as boomers pop their clogs or manage their finances.
It's interesting to complain about narcissism when posting on a public forum but I can well believe that image obsession has increased due to social media. That's a problem. As is constant phone notifications and short attention spans. One the boomers are lucky to be on the tail end of. Although my boomer parents use WhatsApp more than I do.
Young will be young, when you reach a certain age you stop caring about some people's opinions. Social media has magnified that. Boomers are not to blame for that one. But criticising youngsters for the world they live in isn't valid either.
So, agreed
turbobloke said:
cheesejunkie said:
havoc said:
Because their gains are far from all down to "hard work" (across the generation or two we're talking about) - a lot is down to luck - luck in terms of when born, in terms of where born (those in the SE or 'posh' bits up north have gained far more than those in old mining/manufacturing towns, for example), and in terms of the prevailing government policies when they were the ones best able to take advantage of them. Granted they DID work hard, and they would have had to take at least some of the opportunities presented to them. But it's like Donald Trump claiming to be a business genius - it's very visibly misguided and egotistical.
...and also because so many of them, rather than acknowledging that luck, talk down to the younger generations telling them to work harder and spend less. Both MAY be valid observations, but those punching down neglect to do their sums and recognise that working harder and spending less will, for your average Gen-Y, make up only a fraction of the gap they need to close.
I suspect you're right though, and the press are trying to twist it into more of a generational conflict than it really is, all to deflect from the truth that the "Have's" have far more now and will have even more going forwards, while the "Have Not's" are pretty much screwed and stuck with their lot for the next couple of generations at least. After all, who owns all the mainstream media...
I don't resent my parents for their success or their (large but in the wrong neighbourhood) house. But I do despair of my dad when he comes out with all these Daily Mail cliche's and criticises younger generations that he's no direct experience with (he retired early 15-20 years ago) and zero understanding of. I am also a little pissed off that instead of properly investing all his spare money (or at the very least spending it on him and Mum and doing something nice for a change!) he left it sitting in long-term savings doing very little, but that's a personal matter and one I've long since learned not to broach...
Good post and I won’t dilute it by saying too much but talking down the young is a superb point (I’m not young)....and also because so many of them, rather than acknowledging that luck, talk down to the younger generations telling them to work harder and spend less. Both MAY be valid observations, but those punching down neglect to do their sums and recognise that working harder and spending less will, for your average Gen-Y, make up only a fraction of the gap they need to close.
I suspect you're right though, and the press are trying to twist it into more of a generational conflict than it really is, all to deflect from the truth that the "Have's" have far more now and will have even more going forwards, while the "Have Not's" are pretty much screwed and stuck with their lot for the next couple of generations at least. After all, who owns all the mainstream media...
I don't resent my parents for their success or their (large but in the wrong neighbourhood) house. But I do despair of my dad when he comes out with all these Daily Mail cliche's and criticises younger generations that he's no direct experience with (he retired early 15-20 years ago) and zero understanding of. I am also a little pissed off that instead of properly investing all his spare money (or at the very least spending it on him and Mum and doing something nice for a change!) he left it sitting in long-term savings doing very little, but that's a personal matter and one I've long since learned not to broach...
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/this-is-t...
It's stretching things to claim even in a 'good post' that e.g. people benefiting from house price rises don't know it and/or don't acknowledge it. The claim is no more than another attempted group smear.
And this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
I've no idea which way this thread has gone or even if I've posted this before, quite possibly.
My dad got significantly worse grades at school than I did. Did 2 A levels only and then went and did his completely free medical degree. Bought a nice detached house for a couple of times his junior doctor salary and retired in his mid 50's and by his own admission realised a little too late he could have comfortably retired earlier.
The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.
My dad got significantly worse grades at school than I did. Did 2 A levels only and then went and did his completely free medical degree. Bought a nice detached house for a couple of times his junior doctor salary and retired in his mid 50's and by his own admission realised a little too late he could have comfortably retired earlier.
The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.
ChocolateFrog said:
I've no idea which way this thread has gone or even if I've posted this before, quite possibly.
My dad got significantly worse grades at school than I did. Did 2 A levels only and then went and did his completely free medical degree. Bought a nice detached house for a couple of times his junior doctor salary and retired in his mid 50's and by his own admission realised a little too late he could have comfortably retired earlier.
The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.
If property wasn’t such a rigged market I think much of this discussion would be irrelevant. But it is relevant and affects many of the opinions.My dad got significantly worse grades at school than I did. Did 2 A levels only and then went and did his completely free medical degree. Bought a nice detached house for a couple of times his junior doctor salary and retired in his mid 50's and by his own admission realised a little too late he could have comfortably retired earlier.
The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.
cheesejunkie said:
ChocolateFrog said:
I've no idea which way this thread has gone or even if I've posted this before, quite possibly.
My dad got significantly worse grades at school than I did. Did 2 A levels only and then went and did his completely free medical degree. Bought a nice detached house for a couple of times his junior doctor salary and retired in his mid 50's and by his own admission realised a little too late he could have comfortably retired earlier.
The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.
If property wasn’t such a rigged market I think much of this discussion would be irrelevant. But it is relevant and affects many of the opinions.My dad got significantly worse grades at school than I did. Did 2 A levels only and then went and did his completely free medical degree. Bought a nice detached house for a couple of times his junior doctor salary and retired in his mid 50's and by his own admission realised a little too late he could have comfortably retired earlier.
The lottery of life was won being born in the 50's.
NRS said:
I’ve seen very few boomers say they were lucky with house prices and made a fortune from tax free house price gains. Almost all say it is down to hard work. I’d love to know how much they actually paid for their house versus the value. In many cases (particularly SE UK) they’ll have easily made over £500k tax free through no hard work.
And this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
A large proportion of people live and die in the house that they bought when they were in their 20s/30s/40s. They may leave a larger amount behind them but in the meantime they have not "made" £500k; unless they want to live out their old age in a tent they made basically fAnd this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
k all just because somewhere that has happened to go up in book value. On the other hand, if they managed to buy a house an a "normal" wage and are now living on an equivalent pension they don’t have the ready cash to pay property taxes based on the values that they could never have afforded and if they need any repairs or maintenance doing some millennial will come along and charge them more for a day than they used to earn in a week.
Steve H said:
NRS said:
I’ve seen very few boomers say they were lucky with house prices and made a fortune from tax free house price gains. Almost all say it is down to hard work. I’d love to know how much they actually paid for their house versus the value. In many cases (particularly SE UK) they’ll have easily made over £500k tax free through no hard work.
And this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
A large proportion of people live and die in the house that they bought when they were in their 20s/30s/40s. They may leave a larger amount behind them but in the meantime they have not "made" £500k; unless they want to live out their old age in a tent they made basically fAnd this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
k all just because somewhere that has happened to go up in book value. On the other hand, if they managed to buy a house an a "normal" wage and are now living on an equivalent pension they don’t have the ready cash to pay property taxes based on the values that they could never have afforded and if they need any repairs or maintenance doing some millennial will come along and charge them more for a day than they used to earn in a week.
(That's also ignoring they can release capital from the house when alive if they want to - yes, at a high cost but they're still massively in the plus given how much money they made for "free" and was not taxed).
Some kind of wealth tax/property tax is a different argument, but it could also be viewed as a good thing for society these days too. An old couple/window(er) living in the same 4 bedroom house as when they had the kids at home is not an "efficient" use of housing when there is a shortage. If they sell up and downsize it would help balance up the demand versus supply of houses in the country. Of course this will be unpopular, and said to be unfair. But it's not really different to the smaller number of young people paying for a large number of older people's pensions and healthcare, resulting in public services going down despite high tax rates on income meaning they pay more for less. It's something that needs to happen due to demographics and the way the system was set up (the next generation pay for the older one, as we were too skint to pay for ourselves after the war), so in the same way younger people will lose out in general to help society, so the same could apply to "forced" downsizing and so on.
Economics and demographics mean there should be changes to do what is best for society overall.
NRS said:
Steve H said:
NRS said:
I’ve seen very few boomers say they were lucky with house prices and made a fortune from tax free house price gains. Almost all say it is down to hard work. I’d love to know how much they actually paid for their house versus the value. In many cases (particularly SE UK) they’ll have easily made over £500k tax free through no hard work.
And this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
A large proportion of people live and die in the house that they bought when they were in their 20s/30s/40s. They may leave a larger amount behind them but in the meantime they have not "made" £500k; unless they want to live out their old age in a tent they made basically fAnd this isn’t saying hard work means nothing, but far too much focus is put on ‘hard work’. I’m lucky enough to be paid low 6 figures, and I’d say a huge number of people earning less than me work far harder. I’m just lucky enough my skills/the stuff I enjoy put me in a career that pays well. That’s it, there’s nothing more than that. It’s just luck as to what I like and can do well at and how that matches with what society values. It’s not about hard work by itself.
k all just because somewhere that has happened to go up in book value. On the other hand, if they managed to buy a house an a "normal" wage and are now living on an equivalent pension they don’t have the ready cash to pay property taxes based on the values that they could never have afforded and if they need any repairs or maintenance doing some millennial will come along and charge them more for a day than they used to earn in a week.
(That's also ignoring they can release capital from the house when alive if they want to - yes, at a high cost but they're still massively in the plus given how much money they made for "free" and was not taxed).
Some kind of wealth tax/property tax is a different argument, but it could also be viewed as a good thing for society these days too. An old couple/window(er) living in the same 4 bedroom house as when they had the kids at home is not an "efficient" use of housing when there is a shortage. If they sell up and downsize it would help balance up the demand versus supply of houses in the country. Of course this will be unpopular, and said to be unfair. But it's not really different to the smaller number of young people paying for a large number of older people's pensions and healthcare, resulting in public services going down despite high tax rates on income meaning they pay more for less. It's something that needs to happen due to demographics and the way the system was set up (the next generation pay for the older one, as we were too skint to pay for ourselves after the war), so in the same way younger people will lose out in general to help society, so the same could apply to "forced" downsizing and so on.
Economics and demographics mean there should be changes to do what is best for society overall.
turbobloke said:
It's still boiling down to "some people born at one time have a different context to those born at a different time with some luckier than others" it was always like that and will remain the same. Not least as politicians are particularly useless when it comes to the law of unintended consequences. Boomers have no responsibility for being born when they were. Are some people saying they should keep apologising or going on and on about it to appease and placate other generations? Surely not.
It's not asking for people to say sorry, it's about doing stuff to balance society, often to counter previous benefits that caused the inequality. Yes, boomers were born at a certain time, and demographics and government policies resulted in them getting certain benefits. Now the demographics and society problems have changed it will mean government policies will change to counter that. If boomers weren't unlucky enough to be born when they were they would avoid these (possible) solutions. It could well be many boomers "won" because of a government policy to give away council houses for peanuts. That's partly behind a shortage of affordable housing now. So what is wrong with the government then making a policy which "guides" the same people into selling their house to others who need the space far more than them? Or taxing huge house price gains to avoid baking in a big inequality on the inheritance lottery that has nothing to do with hard work of the kids who get it. And the money raised is just a small part of what was a massive subsidy they got when younger, they're still massively ahead even with these possible policies.
It's not jealousy of when you were born, it's adapting things to try and and fix issues in society, the same sort of thing that was done previously and helped boomers.
The council house "give away" helped many people improve their lot in life, and allowed a lot of people to benefit. The irony is that then makes it worse for the next generation when there is not those houses available, and results in growing inequality as a lot of someone's wealth comes down to if their parents bought a house or not. We could just ignore that and say "it's just luck of when you were born", or just change a government policy, which was exactly what caused this benefit AND problem.
The irony is many government policies often result in the opposite in the long term compared to what they do in the short term, hence there should be changes to "fix" the long term issues after there has been the benefits in the short term.
turbobloke said:
Boomers have no responsibility for being born when they were. Are some people saying they should keep apologising or going on and on about it to appease and placate other generations? Surely not.
It's not about apologising, it's about creating and enacting policies which correct some of the imbalances which have happened as a result of boomers being (your words) "lucky". This "luck" has created large wealth imbalances between rich and poor which has serious social and economic consequences for society as a whole and the job of the government is to correct these problems. Economist now apparently saying "Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich. Millennials were poorer at this stage in their lives. So were baby-boomers"
Does someone have a subscription?
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/20...
Does someone have a subscription?
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/20...
otolith said:
Economist now apparently saying "Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich. Millennials were poorer at this stage in their lives. So were baby-boomers"
Does someone have a subscription?
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/20...
It's mostly USA based as you'll have noticed, but they make a good point.Does someone have a subscription?
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/20...
We've had boomers now we have bloomers (not aunty's) and zoomers.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 7th May 09:44
cheesejunkie said:
If property wasn’t such a rigged market I think much of this discussion would be irrelevant. But it is relevant and affects many of the opinions.
Its not a rigged market. That's up there with faking moon landings.The underlying issue the UK faces - that eclipses 99% of the BS and wailing, the UK isn't polycentric. Its placed huge over reliance on its economic potential in a small proportion of the country. This further exacerbates supply issues.
You can still buy cheap property all over the country - but no one wants to live there, because economically its Romania.
Because ALL pollical parties have failed to invest in diversifying AND decentralising the UK economy, 2 underlying issues have been created:
1) In poorer areas with low incomes / poverty - you can't get on the asset ladder as you don't earn enough or have enough job opportunity to support a mortgage (you become at risk to external parties buying up property to rent)
2) in areas where people do want to live = or close to source of economic power - property is in short supply - creating supply squeezes and rampant asset price inflation
The attempts to rebalance the economy have been appalling bad, its lack of investment by all political parties. Rather than create the conditions for investment and maximising the benefits of expansive Monetary Policy - the entire West was doing (so we had no choice but to go along), we practiced geographic discrimination.
Here's how we farm out Public Sector jobs in the UK:
Near shoring public sector work would be catastrophic for the regions - because no Govt could be bothered to actually properly invest in rest of UK. Just fluffing the London and metro elite echo chamber.
This tells you all you need to know about the Boomer effect:
To spell out the impact: the economically inactive have seen their incomes rise by more than half again compared to the economically active, that is clearly unsustainable.
The voting power of the baby boomers (light blue) in the US over time is shown below, it will be similar for the UK (ignore China):
IFS said:
(The triple lock) has led to the state pension rising by 60% in cash terms between 2010 and 2023, compared with prices rising by 42% and earnings rising by only 40%.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/triple-lock-uncertainty-pension-incomes-and-public-finances#:~:text=Overall%2C%20this%20has%20led%20to,rises%20in%20line%20with%20earnings.To spell out the impact: the economically inactive have seen their incomes rise by more than half again compared to the economically active, that is clearly unsustainable.
The voting power of the baby boomers (light blue) in the US over time is shown below, it will be similar for the UK (ignore China):
BandOfBrothers said:
This tells you all you need to know about the Boomer effect:
To spell out the impact: the economically inactive have seen their incomes rise by more than half again compared to the economically active, that is clearly unsustainable.
And to be even more explicit about it, that money for the economically active has come directly from the pockets of those working. It's a zero sum game, if pensioners are to be given pay rises that is paid for by those who are working today. It actually gets worse, as the productivity of those who are working is at best stable, at worst going down, so people are producing less, and having to pay more tax. The first explains why we are getting poorer, the second explains why people are really struggling with just getting by. IFS said:
(The triple lock) has led to the state pension rising by 60% in cash terms between 2010 and 2023, compared with prices rising by 42% and earnings rising by only 40%.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/triple-lock-uncertainty-pension-incomes-and-public-finances#:~:text=Overall%2C%20this%20has%20led%20to,rises%20in%20line%20with%20earnings.To spell out the impact: the economically inactive have seen their incomes rise by more than half again compared to the economically active, that is clearly unsustainable.
And these are government policy choices - we as a country are choosing to burden the working population with higher taxes to buy votes from pensioners.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff