Boomer life according to the economist

[NickZ24]

I wonder if life was like that for Boomers in the UK:

[quote]The 1950s were a good decade to be born in Britain. A newly minted welfare state ensured that your early years were free from squalor. For the lucky few who made it there, university cost nothing. During your peak earning years, taxes plunged thanks to Margaret Thatcher, oil gushing from the North Sea and the restorative effect of the EU’s single market on the sick man of Europe. Rocketing house prices more than compensated for a few years of high interest rates. Defined-benefit pension schemes, then still the norm, ensured that retirement would be prosperous.
Whatever this generation wanted, this generation nearly always got. ........
[/quote]

source: the economist over https://archive.is/aWdik#selection-1079.0-1093.67

I think the economist forgot about some classes, i.e. working class.
Or is the UK mainstream really like that???

[NickZ24]

Countdown said:

It's not really "disposable" wealth as such. Afaics the property boom benefits the kids more when they inherit. My dad has quite a large house but he can't really sell it because him and my mum would still need somewhere to live, they would need/want to be close to family/freinds and so on. The biggest beneficiaries will probably be the grandkids.

How high is the % of homeownership vs population?
If 80 % own houses it'd be more than OK.

[NickZ24]

turbobloke said:

Easily? You missed the bit about wanting to be close to family and friends. In addition, it's not always that "easy" to move nearby and be in a house significantly smaller with money from the difference in their account. Houses tend to be in groups of about the same size and value. There's also the emotional attachment that people in families have for the family home regardless of having friends and family nearby.

Life is not easy?
How do you compare the EU lifestyle with say African in the woods kind of lifestyles?
The hardship of moving away from loved ones is not really harsh when seeing the distances of the US.
Depending on the year you wish to sell your houses most people have not sold anything.

[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

[NickZ24]

Slow.Patrol said:

n someways the younger generation do have more.

I think we all know that a 100 quit did get you further in the 1980 than 2024.
So a larger income is like a smokescreen

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.

Wealth divides and inequality are not that bad, bad is the the resignation. Envy is an engine driving you to commit to an higher effort to make it. In kids it works, in adults less as violence comes into play.

Edited by NickZ24 on Sunday 7th April 23:52

[NickZ24]

havoc said:

i.e. the very-rich are raking it in vs everyone else.
Ref. the rest of your point, I'm not sure how you can say wealth divides and inequality aren't that bad.

I think envy can be used to get the energy needed to get your feet off the ground. Do you envy MCDonald? Start working, convert your fish & chips shop into a chain. Get investors and so on till you get past MCDonald.
It'll take 25 years and many people you can trust, plus good banking and a bit of luck that the economy makes it.

[NickZ24]

havoc said:

Socially the biggest issue is that "children" literally cannot afford to move out of their parents home without moving 100s of miles away.

I think most of those children could well make it to own a house or more if they'd apply some tightened waistband tactic. Not going out for a few years, not eating out for a few years, invest and reinvest.
Kids nowadays lack discipline, or they do not know what that is.
Ok not all and some still do make it like Hoodrich. > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-67197321
Who started his streetwear brand Hoodrich in Birmingham in 2014 with just £200.

Text interpretation of that marketing success you find here: https://se544.com/en/marketing-success.html

Edited by NickZ24 on Tuesday 16th April 14:28

[NickZ24]

havoc said:

Oh, that old chestnut. Gotta love that bit of bullst from boomers who can't do maths.

Per person, assuming pretty profligate spending:-
Save 5 coffees per week = £15-20
Save 1 takeawy per week = £20-25
Save 1 meal out per week = £40
Save 1 night clubbing per week = £25-40.

Total per week = £100 - 125. Per month = £400-500*. Per year = £5k-6k. Over 5 years = £30k.

Over 5 years, the house price inflation on an average-priced home = 20-30% x £280k = £50-80k. Twice what they've saved up.

Per person, assuming pretty profligate spending:-
Save 15 coffees per week = £45-60
Save 7 takeaway per week = £140-165
Save 7 meal out per week = £280
Save 3 night clubbing per week = £75-120
A holiday 2 times a year, a posh car all ads up, credits, shopping

Total per week = 540 to 625 without holidays, with holidays and credits for a car about 1.5 to 2K per month. Per year = £18k-22k. Over 5 Years.....

Don't just calculate in extremes, extremes go both ways, do you really believe the millions who fly off to costa brava, costa del sol, Mallorca do that by winning the lottery?

Edited by NickZ24 on Saturday 13th April 00:44

[NickZ24]

okgo said:

There’s plenty in London doing that - I certainly did a fair bit of it and still mostly do in my 30’s.

Saving £30k over 5 years as useful as a chocolate teacup when avg price is over £500k tbh

Saving £30k over 5 years gives you a shot to open a business. In those 5 years you work on a credit history.
Its is exactly the mindset that 30k are peanuts which leads to a standstill.

There are no raisins raining down if you wish to own a house.

[NickZ24]

NRS said:

And most businesses go bust in the first year, so not great financial advice for most people to buy a house,

Do you leave your home? I mean you could fall, why dare?
We all learn, we stand up, we fall we get up again.
The Boomerlife according to the economist tells a story as if our forefather had it easy.
The same stories of people making it exist today. I.e. Hoodrich https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-67197321

Coffee and eating out, clothing, a car, some holiday, better is learning how to save, as all that ads up.
Sure if you prefer to complain that is your cup of tea.

[NickZ24]

Olivera said:

From the FT:

Any especial reason to compare the richest with the middle-class?
It does not makes sense to cry and not doing enough. Have a look how the richest people have done it.

[NickZ24]

havoc said:

They've been born to rich parents. As the FT clearly demonstrates.

Now stop being a tt and either engage in reasonable discourse or go find another thread to f-up.

Well if I shut up this thread would not exist.
You cannot fathom a different opinion, then I suggest you see a Dr.

businessnewsdaily.com said:

Most of today’s millionaires weren’t born into their wealth, research shows. A study published by Wealth-X found that around 68 percent of those with a net worth of $30 million or more made it themselves. Further, a second study by Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of all millionaires are self-made, meaning they did not inherit their wealth.

Source: https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-mi...

Learn how to argue, and not just with slurs.

[NickZ24]

Scootersp said:

ok here is my argument.

Ok so the guy who set up the clothing business, perhaps he has a few mates he's since sorted out with a job in the warehousing/distribution side of things or sales etc. But hold on for these guys to make enough for a house they should set up their own business right? So they can enjoy the same success?

And I appreciate that;)

Hoodrich had help no doubt. In the story he had a few attempts, shopify, was later discovered, had a break when the company was bought up by a clothing giant.

The difference is he was not driven to own a house, as many here seem to be.
He was driven to make his product and that he did. He started with 14-15  when most kids watch either TV or Tiktok and dream.  

We condition ourselves with getting used to stuff, we also decide what kind of stuff you wish to get used to.
The biggest hindernis is our surroundings, our mates who are also used to complaining, partying or something else.  

You need 20 years to grow a company, or get stuck and get used to what you have. Life moves and if we don't move life catches up.  

Edited by NickZ24 on Friday 3rd May 14:08

[NickZ24]

brickwall said:

If Boomers are asking why millennials striving for a house don’t work some overtime and save every penny - the answer may well be “because it won’t make a difference anyway”.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that for many - you can work and save as hard as you like, but the only way to buy a decent home is with family help. If that’s off the table, then you can’t blame them for going “fk it I’ll enjoy life now then”.

The very reason people don't accumulate money is that they are wasting it. That is 3rd World thinking.
People here waste money on consume, with 3 years they'd be able to finance a hot dog stand. Some places the banks don't give you money for start ups.

Its not worth is your mindset telling you not to change. There are 1000 of people who demonstrate otherwise. But those are just lucky.

[NickZ24]

OoopsVoss said:

How?

What happened in Greece in 2012? The banks would have ceased to exist within 48hours. That would bring down all payment systems, everything goes. There is no backstop to the banking system, what you are suggesting would need everyone to have an account at the Central Bank - plus the govt to have full control and ownership of SWIFT etc.

You could print all the money you want, but you'd need to physically deliver it to everyone within hours. Its not possible.

I mean its stupid to have all your eggs in 1 basket, but you do. They did (in a way exactly what you said). If that weekend both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley didn't succumb to the Fed and become bank holding co's (they weren't banks pre that) - complete system failure. The legal and regulatory landscape doesn't mean you have to default on an entire loan amount - just the margin amount.

We have single point of failure risk and no way of controlling velocity. There isn't government structures big or fast enough to step in. As nuts as that is. Covid is a Mickey Mouse problem.

Absolutely correct and hardly anyone sees that.
Most people wishing for banks to go away do that because they don't fathom the consequences of it. The banks know it too and that leads to abuse.

Due to the widespread ignorance shown on social platforms society faces the risk that more and more ignorant politicians lead and lead into chaos, City dwellers beware. Apart from raising temps without banks, no supermarkets.

[NickZ24]

Scootersp said:

Ignorance is partly fair enough, because we are never really sat down and explained much about money, commercial banking, central banks etc? I'd argue that it's not even that easy to find out definitively exactly what does go on, what exactly all the parties do, the fact there are crisis points to at least those running the show don't know all the in and outs, the pathways are options and the fixes vary, depending on which set of professionals/economists you ask?

We are all born ignorant and it is in our power to change that stage in life.

Knowing the way differs much from walking it.
You can know how things work, but it's up to you to remain a correct person. How many politicians fall for the temptations of government funds? And partly it's legal. I bet there is a commission paid to the people making a schoolbook nationwide a requirement in schools.

You push a credit to a City like London and 0.5% is legally yours. That is how the system works. It supports and pushes people who do good to other party members.

[NickZ24]

Panamax said:

Indeed. A world of smoke 'n' mirrors guided by a book that's handed down from generation to generation of the great high priests for true believers to follow, irrespective of its relevance to changed circumstances. Sound familiar?

Good point.+1

havoc said:

If this was a pub chat it'd be good to continue this in more detail...but it's O/T here so let's get back to bashing boomers, eh?

Who's bashing boomers?
I question the following generation by being too complacent. In the entire western world.

[NickZ24]

Reading about the woes people have in some parts:

The UK politics turn still around just 2 parties?
Which do basically the same each period.

[NickZ24]

otolith said:

I'm not sure why the writer considers UK rental so problematic - our home ownership rate is higher than many European countries, including Austria (he mentions Vienna), Germany, and Switzerland and similar to Sweden and France.

Sure is Germany, Austria, Netherlands even Denmark I believe have a rental based system.

[NickZ24]

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.

Unfortunately that does not help the average Joe.
Those factors are put towards the public as a crude nominator, a measure which does not fit anyone.
If you wish to think that through correctly, compare Income groups before taxes and after. You'll see that data is hard to come by.

Bad tongues deem that being done on purpose.