Boomer life according to the economist

[mwstewart]

havoc said:

The even sadder thing is in the UK that the wealth divide is bigger than at any point since the Victorian era, and the government has WASTED tens of £billions on stupid schemes and corrupt Covid procurement. All this aggro between Boomers and Gen-Y should be directed at those at the top who are fking the remaining 99% of us over - fix that problem and the Boomers can retire quietly while Gen-Y will actually be able to afford stuff.

The wealth divide often discusssed is not between average PAYE folk with mortgages but between us and big business. In that sense the UK is no different to anywhere else. Go explore East Asia and see young people driving brand new Range Rovers next to others collecting waste plastic bottles to earn money from selling to recycling plants. The GDP rises there are concentrated to a small amount of people.

Internet business has been the largest wealth concentration mechanism since our Industrial Revolution. The incompetence of the government is not to blame for that.

There will always be people with the ability - and desire - to make significantly more money than others.

[NRS]

Steve H said:

NRS said:

It’s not just about political policies put in place before we were born. The boomer block despite having loads dying is still more powerful than the young working population block because there is more of them. They have had politicians tripping over themselves to do whatever they can for this block because it keeps them in power.

Isn’t 90% of history the story of the older and more established/powerful part of the population being sustained by the work of the younger population?

Everyone gets to wait their turn. The only difference now is that younger people have more of a voice and a greater say than the 25 year old boomers had. Or at least, they get to write stuff for The Economist.

It depends how you mean... older leaders typically do have a bias in their decision making as they typically don't see properly how the world has changed, and so try and answer the current issues with their own life experiences rather than adapt to where we are now. They also do have a lot of useful experiences on some parts of life though.

In general it was a lot more up to the family to look after their own until the second world war and when the welfare state was set up. Then because of the lack of money due to the war it was decided to make the working lot pay for the older group. Which was fine, a large group of working people were paying for a small group of old people, both because a lot of older people had been killed off and because there was a massive cluster of births to celebrate the end of the war.

Now due to falling birthrates there is less working people to pay for older people, and less of them to vote. So instead of a pyramid with a few old people being paid for by a lot of young people it's more like a somewhat top heavy pillar. Those older people have more voting power than the younger ones. Hence stuff like the triple lock being protected for almost 2 decades when salaries have not really kept up with inflation. That's always countered by "you'll get it when you are older so what's the issue" - the problem is it likely will not be there because we've "run out of money". The spending is unsustainable at the moment, far less people paying for a huge pension and healthcare bubble when the country is already in a lot of debt. The cuts we see in services now is just the start, that debt will continue to grow and mean even less services can be supplied. So state pension will likely be cut or means tested, pension age will increase and so on. IMO healthcare will likely be more limited in future too, as it is a massive cost these days. Debt interest, social protection (pensions and benefits) and health eat up around around 60% of spending now, and it's the areas that are growing still while most of the rest is flat.





Voting matters, people saying younger people have a voice is partly true - at least in the media. But when it comes to policy it's the voting that matters most, and currently young people can't outvote the older ones due to demographics.

[OoopsVoss]

mwstewart said:

havoc said:

The even sadder thing is in the UK that the wealth divide is bigger than at any point since the Victorian era, and the government has WASTED tens of £billions on stupid schemes and corrupt Covid procurement. All this aggro between Boomers and Gen-Y should be directed at those at the top who are fking the remaining 99% of us over - fix that problem and the Boomers can retire quietly while Gen-Y will actually be able to afford stuff.

The wealth divide often discusssed is not between average PAYE folk with mortgages but between us and big business. In that sense the UK is no different to anywhere else. Go explore East Asia and see young people driving brand new Range Rovers next to others collecting waste plastic bottles to earn money from selling to recycling plants. The GDP rises there are concentrated to a small amount of people.

Internet business has been the largest wealth concentration mechanism since our Industrial Revolution. The incompetence of the government is not to blame for that.

There will always be people with the ability - and desire - to make significantly more money than others.

The UK has significant regional GDP per capita distortion. London's GDP is about 7-800% of the North East. London and the SE account for roughly 40%+ of the UK's total GDP. And if you look within London is crazier still. In fact if you look at GDP data, some might not be quite so quick to blame "boomers" for the worlds ills - there are way more factors in play - its just convenient to have the generational argument play out
.

[mwstewart]

NRS said:

...data..

On a similar theme I read a staggering statistic yesterday: 54.4% of the UK population receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. ONS data.

I do blame weak government leadership for that one.

[SunsetZed]

mwstewart said:

NRS said:

...data..

On a similar theme I read a staggering statistic yesterday: 54.4% of the UK population receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. ONS data.

I do blame weak government leadership for that one.

Agreed, and as the percentage of pensioners increases this number may well do.

[The Leaper]

SunsetZed said:

mwstewart said:

NRS said:

...data..

On a similar theme I read a staggering statistic yesterday: 54.4% of the UK population receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. ONS data.

I do blame weak government leadership for that one.

Agreed, and as the percentage of pensioners increases this number may well do.

Well, I receive State pension. In 2022/23 it represented 9% of my gross total taxable income. I paid 25% of that same gross taxable income as tax. I know what side of the line I sit.

R.

[Panamax]

The Leaper said:

Well, I receive State pension. In 2022/23 it represented 9% of my gross total taxable income. I paid 25% of that same gross taxable income as tax. I know what side of the line I sit.R.

Perhaps even more remarkably, some people whose ONLY income is State Pension find they have become taxpayers due to this government's insidious "band creep".

[Scootersp]

mwstewart said:

There will always be people with the ability - and desire - to make significantly more money than others.

That's fine, but past a certain bound the % of money made originally from endeavour reduces and the money made from others endeavour increases?

Again not a bad thing in moderation, you are rewarded in money and time for your extra efforts/innovation, but if you become very very rich your income far exceeds what you can reasonably spend and you accumulate more assets that generate more income with no additional work?

Overtime if left unchecked more and more assets are owned by less and less people, is it not a partial reason for house prices to earnings ratio going up. If you have spare millions a month, what the asset prices go up to, are largely irrelevant, or certainly not a barrier, when compared to the person who has saved a deposit and obtained a mortgage for the balance.

So the next generation, and we are seeing this today, have to earn more to get the same stuff, and you can get widespread disillusionment/disgruntlement. Farmers in France (no surprise perhaps), but also Holland, Poland,. Spain and now the UK have done protests "Farmers are being burdened by debt, squeezed by powerful retailers and agrochemical companies"

I think for decades, we've had everyone in general improving, those at the top at a higher rate sure but if in your own bubble things are improving even just a little then you don't see/feel any issue. What is happening now I believe is that the very rich are insulated from pretty much everything and are getting relatively and probably nominally more wealthy than ever, but the working classes of people have started to feel poorer, some just a little belt tightening/spending adjustment, some treading water and others really genuinely concerned for their futures.

When they see/perceive that above and below them, the pensioners, benefit claimants and the rich are being looked after then it can lead to lots of bad outcomes. A giving up/low productivity/despair, a desperation/protest/activism, which won't help with productivity that we all need to maintain/improve the country as a whole.

[mwstewart]

Scootersp said:

That's fine, but past a certain bound the % of money made originally from endeavour reduces and the money made from others endeavour increases?

Again not a bad thing in moderation, you are rewarded in money and time for your extra efforts/innovation, but if you become very very rich your income far exceeds what you can reasonably spend and you accumulate more assets that generate more income with no additional work?

Overtime if left unchecked more and more assets are owned by less and less people, is it not a partial reason for house prices to earnings ratio going up. If you have spare millions a month, what the asset prices go up to, are largely irrelevant, or certainly not a barrier, when compared to the person who has saved a deposit and obtained a mortgage for the balance.

So the next generation, and we are seeing this today, have to earn more to get the same stuff, and you can get widespread disillusionment/disgruntlement. Farmers in France (no surprise perhaps), but also Holland, Poland,. Spain and now the UK have done protests "Farmers are being burdened by debt, squeezed by powerful retailers and agrochemical companies"

I think for decades, we've had everyone in general improving, those at the top at a higher rate sure but if in your own bubble things are improving even just a little then you don't see/feel any issue. What is happening now I believe is that the very rich are insulated from pretty much everything and are getting relatively and probably nominally more wealthy than ever, but the working classes of people have started to feel poorer, some just a little belt tightening/spending adjustment, some treading water and others really genuinely concerned for their futures.

When they see/perceive that above and below them, the pensioners, benefit claimants and the rich are being looked after then it can lead to lots of bad outcomes. A giving up/low productivity/despair, a desperation/protest/activism, which won't help with productivity that we all need to maintain/improve the country as a whole.

Agree about the average person feeling poorer, though I do put the boomer generation in a different bracket to the super wealthy who have the ability to influence asset prices at a macro level.

My personal view is the current affordability problem is not heavily influenced by previous generations. Broadly, we have:

1) QE/Inflation/COVID/Russian war and its effect on the economy. To me it feels significant - an overnight change, relatively speaking;
2) An over generous welfare state;
3) Population/immigration driven pressure on house prices + regional redistribution due to WfH;
4) Wealth concentration (call it super wealth) affecting asset values;
5) Changing demographics affecting health/pension funds;
6) Mismanagement of government funds.

I've put the list in order of impact - how I see it.

[Slow.Patrol]

OoopsVoss said:

Arguably we've seen decent growth under exactly these technocratic conditions. Politically we are past peak populism, but I do see this age schism being long term divisive - and both sides are guilty of being prats. I'm Gen X so staying well out of it.

The media don't help. I don't ever remember generations before me having a label. I think my generation (boomer) was the first.

However, I don't see much in the media about the 11% of 16-24 year olds who are not in education or employment. Additionally, those on benefits due to health issues is soaring.

Personally I think the government have accommodated the pension costs by raising the retirement age. This was inevitable when Tony Blair wanted as many people as possible to go to university to reduce the youth unemployment. Plus, although the figures are not publicly available, expected life spans are reducing. In part to covid, the poor performance of the NHS, and unhealthy lifestyle.

I do wonder if we should investigate the Japanese health service with people having to pay 30% towards treatment (most have private insurance via their employer). Fat people are rare in Japan. Perhaps paying for treatment focuses the mind on keeping fit.

ETA Figures are available on life expectancy showing a decline.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

Edited by Slow.Patrol on Friday 5th April 13:29

[havoc]

OoopsVoss said:

The UK has significant regional GDP per capita distortion. London's GDP is about 7-800% of the North East. London and the SE account for roughly 40%+ of the UK's total GDP. And if you look within London is crazier still. In fact if you look at GDP data, some might not be quite so quick to blame "boomers" for the worlds ills - there are way more factors in play - its just convenient to have the generational argument play out

Agreed. Boomers got lucky, but the only way they've "created" this is by voting for their own self-interest ahead of that of the rest of the country. Can't REALLY blame them for that one...but can blame the government for pandering to it rather than putting their big-boy pants on and dealing with the headache it's causing.

mwstewart said:

On a similar theme I read a staggering statistic yesterday: 54.4% of the UK population receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. ONS data.

I do blame weak government leadership for that one.

So not an ageing population then? Or increasing inequality in both wealth and income? Or a government that has actively pursued less employee security (zero-hour contracts and the 'gig economy') and seems to be chasing low-wage job creation.

You may as well say 50% of children are at schools performing below the national average. It's an accurate statistic that sounds really worrying...until you recognise that it's perfectly normal.

[havoc]

Scootersp said:

I think for decades, we've had everyone in general improving, those at the top at a higher rate sure but if in your own bubble things are improving even just a little then you don't see/feel any issue. What is happening now I believe is that the very rich are insulated from pretty much everything and are getting relatively and probably nominally more wealthy than ever, but the working classes of people have started to feel poorer, some just a little belt tightening/spending adjustment, some treading water and others really genuinely concerned for their futures.

Agreed, except substitute "working classes" (which could be misconstrued) for "the remaining 98/99% of the country", which is more accurate.

Scootersp said:

When they see/perceive that above and below them, the pensioners, benefit claimants and the rich are being looked after then it can lead to lots of bad outcomes. A giving up/low productivity/despair, a desperation/protest/activism, which won't help with productivity that we all need to maintain/improve the country as a whole.

Also agreed. But that's always happened - governments throw money where they perceive there is a problem...only change is that recent governments have been much more shallow / transparent about throwing it at their voters/supporters* not necessarily at where it NEEDS to go.

[NickZ24]

brickwall said:

For almost every generation since the Industrial Revolution, the children’s generation has been richer than their parents. Economic growth has done its thing. This will be the first time for 200+ years where we have a generation that will be poorer than their parents - that’s one hell of a trend to reverse.

And not only in Britain, in most parts of the developed world.
Raising taxation is the reason people do not have more than their parents.
Those who were able to afford houses also had access through that house to money. Money over 100k makes more money quicker than from 1000.

How much do you guys believe those farmers who collected from the EU for not working their land and what else on perks those farmers could lay their hand on?

Their tractors are worth a fortune and even finances you need to have cash flow.

Edited by NickZ24 on Friday 5th April 14:56

[Scootersp]

mwstewart said:

Agree about the average person feeling poorer, though I do put the boomer generation in a different bracket to the super wealthy who have the ability to influence asset prices at a macro level.

My personal view is the current affordability problem is not heavily influenced by previous generations. Broadly, we have:

1) QE/Inflation/COVID/Russian war and its effect on the economy. To me it feels significant - an overnight change, relatively speaking;
2) An over generous welfare state;
3) Population/immigration driven pressure on house prices + regional redistribution due to WfH;
4) Wealth concentration (call it super wealth) affecting asset values;
5) Changing demographics affecting health/pension funds;
6) Mismanagement of government funds.

I've put the list in order of impact - how I see it.

Yeah I'm not a boomer basher, you live in the circumstances you do and individuals can't alone be blamed, everyone tries to make the best for themselves.

My issue really is with the monetary/debt side of things particularly, those from the previous generations who were at the wheelhouse of all that let things slide for decades and patched up things rather than do the harder fixes? All real power is in the hands of the wealthy and no Turkeys vote for Christmas! So your point 4) has been allowed to increase massively. If governments are running out of money and most of the population feel poorer, then the money has to be somewhere right?

Your summary I might condense into, we've run huge deficits spent more on all the things you mention as we can borrow to do it, we've become less self-sufficient as we could always use our currency to import goods rather than produce them ourselves. Even demographics can be partially blamed on the proliferation of debt and asset price increases, children aren't cheap and so get delayed, sometimes until it's too late.

I spose like in personal life, how long can you keep providing more whilst doing less? As long as you are 'good' for all the money you've borrowed I spose?

[OoopsVoss]

havoc said:

OoopsVoss said:

The UK has significant regional GDP per capita distortion. London's GDP is about 7-800% of the North East. London and the SE account for roughly 40%+ of the UK's total GDP. And if you look within London is crazier still. In fact if you look at GDP data, some might not be quite so quick to blame "boomers" for the worlds ills - there are way more factors in play - its just convenient to have the generational argument play out

Agreed. Boomers got lucky, but the only way they've "created" this is by voting for their own self-interest ahead of that of the rest of the country. Can't REALLY blame them for that one...but can blame the government for pandering to it rather than putting their big-boy pants on and dealing with the headache it's causing.

mwstewart said:

On a similar theme I read a staggering statistic yesterday: 54.4% of the UK population receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. ONS data.

I do blame weak government leadership for that one.

So not an ageing population then? Or increasing inequality in both wealth and income? Or a government that has actively pursued less employee security (zero-hour contracts and the 'gig economy') and seems to be chasing low-wage job creation.

You may as well say 50% of children are at schools performing below the national average. It's an accurate statistic that sounds really worrying...until you recognise that it's perfectly normal.

I think you might find that the Boomer wealth catalyst dates back to the Thatcher years - NOT a self interested voting block. Pretty sure some Labour voters also benefitted!

Whilst pension protection is something I can see all Boomers being in favour off, do they really act as a group or are we making lazy assumptions? Some poster was blaming Boomers for the Brexit vote, and their is an interesting section who take glee in people dying off in that debate.... however the Brexit voting data also showed that within England areas of poverty / lack of opportunity voted for Brexit. Was that a Boomer vote or "wealth" led vote? If Brexit is economically bad, why did disadvantaged areas vote to become poorer? The rights and wrongs of Brexit are irrelevant, but this seems to be the point people got very vexed about Boomers. I think there is a big section in society who want payback for a perceived slight, and those wealthy boomers who drink to much, have high blood pressure and have decent asset wealth (which seems to the view of all boomers, incorrectly) are a very, very convenient target for the countries ills.

Interesting reverse approach being attempted in the US right now; with Uncle Joe attempting to write-off $144bn of student debt; whilst they have absolute mooning deficits.... hahahhaha.

[cheesejunkie]

I’ve mentioned before I’ve no hate for pensioners. They’re my parents. Yes they vote selfishly, who doesn’t? You’d be a tit not to.

They grew up with an outside toilet and yawn, I’m falling asleep here, something something I don’t know how lucky I am, yawn,

Life has improved for all of us, not just boomers.

It is fair comment to say the government have not helped by pandering and creating a them and us culture. Short termism isn’t exclusive to any party but only one can be accused of it recently.

[Scootersp]

OoopsVoss said:

Interesting reverse approach being attempted in the US right now; with Uncle Joe attempting to write-off $144bn of student debt; whilst they have absolute mooning deficits.... hahahhaha.

At a trillion every 100 days, who is now counting, just pop it on the pile!

[Slow.Patrol]

NickZ24 said:

Raising taxation is the reason people do not have more than their parents.

In someways the younger generation do have more.

An unmarried pregnant woman in the 1970s had two options - adoption or rely on parents to provide a home for her and her baby. Now the government provide a home and benefits.

Any children with special needs in the 70s either ended up in a home or were looked after by their parents. Now the government provide care. There was an article recently locally as a severely autistic child was taken to school every day from his home by taxi at a cost of £50k a year. Plus we have care in the community which comes at a cost.

The government also provide mobility cars.

I am not saying the government are wrong, but it needs to be recognised that welfare spending is very different to 50 years ago.

[Steve H]

Really interesting discussion


Just on the old people outvoting the young, it not just happening because they are the bigger number of voters. This is the participation levels in recent elections across different age groups.




It looks like the tendency to vote is changing but certainly needs to! If things like the triple lock are an issue to young people then they need to make themselves more important by using the vote they have available to them.

[havoc]

Steve H said:

Really interesting discussion


Just on the old people outvoting the young, it not just happening because they are the bigger number of voters. This is the participation levels in recent elections across different age groups.




It looks like the tendency to vote is changing but certainly needs to! If things like the triple lock are an issue to young people then they need to make themselves more important by using the vote they have available to them.

There's the headache - utter disillusionment with politics. If Starmer could find a way to engage with younger people, he'd be a shoe-in.