Boomer life according to the economist

[Panamax]

havoc said:

Xi is rational - but he definitely has eyes on becoming the pre-eminent superpower in the world. And probably sees Trump as a useful idiot in helping him there.

Putin is a (very successful) petty tyrant clinging onto power in a second rate country which unfortunately has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and possibly the most capable cyber-war capability in the world. And he also sees Trump as someone who can be manipulated.

Trump is a psychological, political and social car-crash who may once again become "leader of the free world". The mess that the Tories have made of the UK while spaffing money at all their mates and donors is nothing to what Trump can achieve if he gets control of both Houses.

Good summary IMO.

[leef44]

Panamax said:

havoc said:

Xi is rational - but he definitely has eyes on becoming the pre-eminent superpower in the world. And probably sees Trump as a useful idiot in helping him there.

Putin is a (very successful) petty tyrant clinging onto power in a second rate country which unfortunately has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and possibly the most capable cyber-war capability in the world. And he also sees Trump as someone who can be manipulated.

Trump is a psychological, political and social car-crash who may once again become "leader of the free world". The mess that the Tories have made of the UK while spaffing money at all their mates and donors is nothing to what Trump can achieve if he gets control of both Houses.

Good summary IMO.

+2

[NickZ24]

Slow.Patrol said:

I was terrified of a nuclear bomb going off as a kid. Then the IRA bombings as a young adult, especially as I lived in a garrison town.

so were we. No IRA where I grew up. But the Red Army is how they called themselves.
The biggest difference is that the rockets were new. Now all Nuclear Warfare is outdated, people grow comfy, so do the armed forces of most countries . And lucky Ukraine that it is like this. Imagine Ukraine at the beginning with all rocketry working.
 
I wonder why that comes up relatively late in the threat.
Most commented and did not go through that?

[cheesejunkie]

Back from the pub comment and haven’t read all the thread. But I’ve always thought the big problem with boomers is that they’re over represented due to by definition being boomers.

The post war baby boom means they outnumber everyone else.

But my born in the 40’s parents have nothing in common with my born in the 60’s cousins born to my parent’s older siblings. Both are technically boomers and are quite far apart on some opinions. Very far apart. Also on life experiences.

There’s a definite issue with attitudes to asset value and the inherited wealth among most boomers of any age mind.

But generally I don’t agree with the age divide war. It’s a bit divide and conquer. A real problem is going to be the extremes in distribution of assets as boomers pass on. Largely due to how they voted and governments appeased the baby glut of their generation.

[Condi]

cheesejunkie said:

But generally I don’t agree with the age divide war. It’s a bit divide and conquer. A real problem is going to be the extremes in distribution of assets as boomers pass on. Largely due to how they voted and governments appeased the baby glut of their generation.

Not only that, but the unequal distribution of wealth across the generations continues, and it is this which causes the resentment.

Boomers own far more property, whereas younger people find it harder to buy their own places. The increased house prices benefits those who have owned their property the longest (ie boomers). Not only that but some of the older generation own multiple houses, so collect rent from younger people.

The triple lock ensures that pensions increase faster than wages, literally taking money from working age people who are already struggling with cost of living to give to those who have stopped working. It's clearly an unsustainable policy but one which the government refuse to look at changing, since their voters are mainly older.


Thanks to the fact that the Tory government is almost entirely propped up by the OAP vote they refuse to take the decisions which matter to correct this imbalance, and so the inequality continues. As the boomers die off then their kids either inherit a fortune or very little, depending on what financial situation their parents were in, and so the inequality between rich and poor becomes baked in across generations.

The tax system needs to change to tax income from assets at least at the same level as tax from working. IHT needs to be greater and that money used to give lower tax rates to the lower income workers. We need to build more houses so that prices at least level off even if there is no appetite for them to come down. Over time their cost vs wages should get lower, even if their value in £ stays the same.

[NRS]

Condi said:

The tax system needs to change to tax income from assets at least at the same level as tax from working. IHT needs to be greater and that money used to give lower tax rates to the lower income workers. We need to build more houses so that prices at least level off even if there is no appetite for them to come down. Over time their cost vs wages should get lower, even if their value in £ stays the same.

Probably changing the rules to IHT is more important than the rate. Basically everyone knows you pass the money onto your kids before you get too old these days to avoid the 7 years rule. So the only people getting hit now are either the unlucky (die suddenly within the 7 years) or the strangely stubborn (some won't pass on any money despite it making far more sense). Of course a lot of people will say it is unfair, but in reality a lot of that wealth will have come from untaxed house price increases, and without IHT it is then passed onto the kids/grandkids with no tax again. In the SE that can be easily 500k or more with no tax.

[Condi]

NRS said:

but in reality a lot of that wealth will have come from untaxed house price increases, and without IHT it is then passed onto the kids/grandkids with no tax again. In the SE that can be easily 500k or more with no tax.

Of course, which is why it needs changing. Its very unhealthy for the country to be concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

[BigMon]

leef44 said:

Panamax said:

havoc said:

Xi is rational - but he definitely has eyes on becoming the pre-eminent superpower in the world. And probably sees Trump as a useful idiot in helping him there.

Putin is a (very successful) petty tyrant clinging onto power in a second rate country which unfortunately has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and possibly the most capable cyber-war capability in the world. And he also sees Trump as someone who can be manipulated.

Trump is a psychological, political and social car-crash who may once again become "leader of the free world". The mess that the Tories have made of the UK while spaffing money at all their mates and donors is nothing to what Trump can achieve if he gets control of both Houses.

Good summary IMO.

+2

+3

Makes you want to put your head in the gas oven.

Slight issue that we don't have a gas oven and I'm not sure I can do the same with the air fryer, but at least I'd be nice and crispy.

[cheesejunkie]

BigMon said:

+3

Makes you want to put your head in the gas oven.

Slight issue that we don't have a gas oven and I'm not sure I can do the same with the air fryer, but at least I'd be nice and crispy.

Come on, those ninja air fryers have so many settings these days there’s bound to be one for that plus a tik tok video explaining how .

[Slow.Patrol]

Condi said:

Not only that, but the unequal distribution of wealth across the generations continues, and it is this which causes the resentment.

But that has always been the case.

My Grandparents accumulated a load of wealth and had a few trips to Australia in retirement.

My parents were probably richer than I will ever be and I didn't have any children. The inheritance shared between me and my two siblings allowed me to retire three years before SPA. Thie house, bought for £3k in 1962 is worth over a million now. They also went away on holiday for all of February to South Africa.

I didn't resent either my Grandparents or Parents. I recognised it was the result of hard work and resolved to attempt to do the same. I didn't hate them because my taxes were paying their state pension.

So what is causing the current wave of resentment? Is it down to entitlement or the media trying to create the news.

[cheesejunkie]

Condi said:

Not only that, but the unequal distribution of wealth across the generations continues, and it is this which causes the resentment.

Boomers own far more property, whereas younger people find it harder to buy their own places. The increased house prices benefits those who have owned their property the longest (ie boomers). Not only that but some of the older generation own multiple houses, so collect rent from younger people.

The triple lock ensures that pensions increase faster than wages, literally taking money from working age people who are already struggling with cost of living to give to those who have stopped working. It's clearly an unsustainable policy but one which the government refuse to look at changing, since their voters are mainly older.


Thanks to the fact that the Tory government is almost entirely propped up by the OAP vote they refuse to take the decisions which matter to correct this imbalance, and so the inequality continues. As the boomers die off then their kids either inherit a fortune or very little, depending on what financial situation their parents were in, and so the inequality between rich and poor becomes baked in across generations.

The tax system needs to change to tax income from assets at least at the same level as tax from working. IHT needs to be greater and that money used to give lower tax rates to the lower income workers. We need to build more houses so that prices at least level off even if there is no appetite for them to come down. Over time their cost vs wages should get lower, even if their value in £ stays the same.

Agreed it’s a cascading problem due to previous decisions and government cowardice. It’ll get “interesting” if we end up with an electorate much more divided in wealth than it has been in a few generations. Even the tories now talk the talk (although don’t really walk the walk) about rewarding workers with their NI cuts.

I have nothing against looking after pensioners. Not every pensioner is sitting in a big house on a fat pension. Excessively pandering to the boomer vote as they’ve aged from workers to OAPs has created some of the problems we see now. Taxing some of those asset gains would be a good thing in my view but I’ve no idea on the logistics how.

[cheesejunkie]

Slow.Patrol said:

But that has always been the case.

My Grandparents accumulated a load of wealth and had a few trips to Australia in retirement.

My parents were probably richer than I will ever be and I didn't have any children. The inheritance shared between me and my two siblings allowed me to retire three years before SPA. Thie house, bought for £3k in 1962 is worth over a million now. They also went away on holiday for all of February to South Africa.

I didn't resent either my Grandparents or Parents. I recognised it was the result of hard work and resolved to attempt to do the same. I didn't hate them because my taxes were paying their state pension.

So what is causing the current wave of resentment? Is it down to entitlement or the media trying to create the news.

Nobody resents their parents or grandparents.

Your shared inheritance provided something many won’t have.

I don’t resent, I’m doing fine. But do you realise that it’s becoming the case that hard work can not beat inherited wealth on a scale that hasn’t been the case for years if not generations? That’s going to eventually cause problems. Arguably already has if you look at some election and referendum results.

With relevance to this thread, it’s largely the result of boomer voting habits and parties chasing them.

[Condi]

Slow.Patrol said:

But that has always been the case.

My Grandparents accumulated a load of wealth and had a few trips to Australia in retirement.

My parents were probably richer than I will ever be and I didn't have any children. The inheritance shared between me and my two siblings allowed me to retire three years before SPA. Thie house, bought for £3k in 1962 is worth over a million now. They also went away on holiday for all of February to South Africa.

I didn't resent either my Grandparents or Parents. I recognised it was the result of hard work and resolved to attempt to do the same. I didn't hate them because my taxes were paying their state pension.

So what is causing the current wave of resentment? Is it down to entitlement or the media trying to create the news.

It hasn't always been the case - for decades the UK was closing inequality and opportunity gaps, but in the last 15 years those have increased hugely, with the austerity and QE in 2008 having a double effect of decreasing public services which fell mainly on the worst off and inflating asset values which increased the wealth of the richest.

Millennials will be the first generation since the Industrial revolution to be poorer than their parents.

Every available statistic shows it is harder for young people to buy a house today than it was in the past. Rent as a proportion of income is massive. Deposit requirements are massive.

I don't think it's resentment so much, as a recognition that boomers had it exceptionally good, and have caused a lot of social problems which are starting to affect the country and will continue to do so until their effects are reversed. What is perhaps more frustrating is that there has been little appetite to acknowledge the problems let alone do much about them.

[turbobloke]

cheesejunkie said:

Slow.Patrol said:

But that has always been the case.

My Grandparents accumulated a load of wealth and had a few trips to Australia in retirement.

My parents were probably richer than I will ever be and I didn't have any children. The inheritance shared between me and my two siblings allowed me to retire three years before SPA. Thie house, bought for £3k in 1962 is worth over a million now. They also went away on holiday for all of February to South Africa.

I didn't resent either my Grandparents or Parents. I recognised it was the result of hard work and resolved to attempt to do the same. I didn't hate them because my taxes were paying their state pension.

So what is causing the current wave of resentment? Is it down to entitlement or the media trying to create the news.

Nobody resents their parents or grandparents.

Your shared inheritance provided something many won’t have.

I don’t resent, I’m doing fine. But do you realise that it’s becoming the case that hard work can not beat inherited wealth on a scale that hasn’t been the case for years if not generations? That’s going to eventually cause problems. Arguably already has if you look at some election and referendum results.

With relevance to this thread, it’s largely the result of boomer voting habits and parties chasing them.

Key policies in place were in place before boomers were born, they could vote for what was available and no more, while being born in any given oeriod of time isn't a choice it's out of your/our control. Any animosity whatsoever aimed at boomers is baseless, pointless and won't help anyone, least of all those doing the whining. Earnings typically peak when in your/our 50s and wealth from that accumulates into the 60s. When those young 'uns angry at boomers for no reason get into their 50s and 60s then a better comparison can be made, but all of it will still be out of the hands of everyone involved as they didn't choose when to be born.

Manual wage was £5 per week and often less in 1925, inflation puts that at £250 per week now when, with the NMW/NLW in place, a manual worker can expect £450 per week i.e. not far off 2x inflation. Based on income surely that means twenty-somethings are doing OK. Or, choose another variable, or choose another era, and they're worse off. Or, it's a waste of time as neither group of workers is to blame for their context. People starting work in the 1920s will escape criticism anyway as almost all will have departed by now so there are no individuals (who typically may not vote the same way as the angries) left to be angry with for no reason.

[cheesejunkie]

Condi said:

It hasn't always been the case - for decades the UK was closing inequality and opportunity gaps, but in the last 15 years those have increased hugely, with the austerity and QE in 2008 having a double effect of decreasing public services which fell mainly on the worst off and inflating asset values which increased the wealth of the richest.

Millennials will be the first generation since the Industrial revolution to be poorer than their parents.

Every available statistic shows it is harder for young people to buy a house today than it was in the past. Rent as a proportion of income is massive. Deposit requirements are massive.

I don't think it's resentment so much, as a recognition that boomers had it exceptionally good, and have caused a lot of social problems which are starting to affect the country and will continue to do so until their effects are reversed. What is perhaps more frustrating is that there has been little appetite to acknowledge the problems let alone do much about them.

Agree with most of that and I think you’ll agree with my qualification. Millennials will not be the first generation to be poorer on average. They’re going to be the richest generation yet. But it’s going to be more ill divided than it has been in years.

[cheesejunkie]

turbobloke said:

Key policies in place were in place before boomers were born, they could vote for what was available and no more, while being born in any given oeriod of time isn't a choice it's out of your/our control. Any animosity whatsoever aimed at boomers is baseless, pointless and won't help anyone, least of all those doing the whining. Earnings typically peak when in your/our 50s and wealth from that accumulates into the 60s. When those young 'uns angry at boomers for no reason get into their 50s and 60s then a better comparison can be made, but all of it will still be out of the hands of everyone involved as they didn't choose when to be born.

Manual wage was £5 per week and often less in 1925, inflation puts that at £250 per week now when, with the NMW/NLW in place, a manual worker can expect £450 per week i.e. not far off 2x inflation. Based on income surely that means twenty-somethings are doing OK. Or, choose another variable, or choose another era, and they're worse off. Or, it's a waste of time as neither group of workers is to blame for their context. People starting work in the 1920s will escape criticism anyway as almost all will have departed by now so there are no individuals (who typically may not vote the same way as the angries) left to be angry with for no reason.

I 100% agree on the nobody can choose when they’re born point. They can choose to recognise intergenerational problems and how they react.

Also agree that whining isn’t the correct approach. A policy based on addressing the societal divides of inherited wealth vs wages would be a good start. Head in the sand is not going to work forever when everyone can vote.

Joking but we’ve billionaires buying private getaway islands. They’re obviously expecting change.

[Condi]

cheesejunkie said:

Agree with most of that and I think you’ll agree with my qualification. Millennials will not be the first generation to be poorer on average. They’re going to be the richest generation yet. But it’s going to be more ill divided than it has been in years.

Not sure, I forget the figures, but I think the median millennial will be poorer even if on average as a group they are richer. Difference between median and mean, etc. But you're right, very large differences between the rich and poorer.

[turbobloke]

Condi said:

cheesejunkie said:

Agree with most of that and I think you’ll agree with my qualification. Millennials will not be the first generation to be poorer on average. They’re going to be the richest generation yet. But it’s going to be more ill divided than it has been in years.

Not sure, I forget the figures, but I think the median millennial will be poorer even if on average as a group they are richer. Difference between median and mean, etc. But you're right, very large differences between the rich and poorer.

It's said that boomers are oldies and oldies tend to be tories. Both are about right.

Labour were in office 1974 to 1979 also more recently 1997 to 2010 so how come the government of Big Government didn't fix intergenerational inequalities? 20 years in total from the 70s on not long enough?

[havoc]

Slow.Patrol said:

I didn't resent either my Grandparents or Parents. I recognised it was the result of hard work and resolved to attempt to do the same. I didn't hate them because my taxes were paying their state pension.

So what is causing the current wave of resentment? Is it down to entitlement or the media trying to create the news.

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...

[cheesejunkie]

turbobloke said:

Condi said:

cheesejunkie said:

Agree with most of that and I think you’ll agree with my qualification. Millennials will not be the first generation to be poorer on average. They’re going to be the richest generation yet. But it’s going to be more ill divided than it has been in years.

Not sure, I forget the figures, but I think the median millennial will be poorer even if on average as a group they are richer. Difference between median and mean, etc. But you're right, very large differences between the rich and poorer.

It's said that boomers are oldies and oldies tend to be tories. Both are about right.

Labour were in office 1974 to 1979 also more recently 1997 to 2010 so how come the government of Big Government didn't fix intergenerational inequalities? 20 years in total from the 70s on not long enough?

Honestly I think it’s “who votes”. We’ve went from a period where many didn’t have the franchise to a period where all have but don’t use it. We’ve one party actively trying to restrict it to the point where the prick that brought in the policy was caught out by it.

But I genuinely think the difference between past inequalities and future ones will be who votes. There’s a dying set of voters. Blunt but true.