"over 55's Lead Life Of The Young"..... And Enjoy A Nice Home!

[Live Peasant]

Interesting lead letter in yesterdays Times regarding the way that politics might develop over the few years, not left and right but young and old.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/l...icle6625920.ece

Personally I don't subscribe to this idea that the'boomer' generation stole from their kids. My generation either got on the ladder in time to ride the upswing or missed out. Whilst it unwinds, there are ging to be a whole load of people for whom the idea of being able to secure an income away from the thief-in-chief Brown's clutches becomes a real concern.

I accept the fact that there will be no state pension and I'm unlikely to be able to retire.

Edited July 4, 2009 by linuxgeek

[Si1]

there may end up being a glut of family 3/4 bed homes on the market as the boomers try to downsize and live from the proceeds. Will that cause a spike in prices for smaller homes as not only ftb's but boomers will be competing? will ftb's lose out again to boomers who have the cash to buy?

arguably the only housing likely to se conitnued demand would be retirement housing - 9in particular bungalows and sheltered - but the sheer square footage released from the 50-somethings (and older) downsizing may cancel this out to some degree...

[Si1]

Little is mentioned of the rolling recessions that affected many of us from the mid 70's right through to the mid 90's, all of which affected myself, family and many friends directly with redundancy and repossession of property etc etc.

from 1983, save one recession that recovered pretty darn quickly 1990-92 ish, we've seen very nice income levels anbd opportunities, thank you.

people currently between 55-60, ie the first stage of baby boomers, were born from 1950 to 1955, and were between 33 and 28 yrs old when the last 25 yrs of growth began. Pretty good position to be in. We COULD be faced with a decade of austerity now, which is much worse than this age group faced in their main working years.

Having said that - there is a fair argument to say that the current monetarist apporach to the econonmy will see us recover much quicker, as pre-1980 it was an awful Keynsian setup adhered to by both labour and tory parties since the war.

[Number79]

arguably the only housing likely to se conitnued demand would be retirement housing - 9in particular bungalows and sheltered - but the sheer square footage released from the 50-somethings (and older) downsizing may cancel this out to some degree...

agreed but there just aren't that many bungalows about.

Is that the next boom for builders? building to cover the shortage of bungalows?

Is 50 something old enough to require a bungalow? My wifes parents and mine are mid fifties and manage stairs quite well. I figured that the boomers would downsize to smaller homes first and then bungallows later. My grandparents downsized and lasted in a house until their seventies before needing a bungallow.

[winkie]

agreed but there just aren't that many bungalows about.

Is that the next boom for builders? building to cover the shortage of bungalows?

Is 50 something old enough to require a bungalow? My wifes parents and mine are mid fifties and manage stairs quite well. I figured that the boomers would downsize to smaller homes first and then bungallows later. My grandparents downsized and lasted in a house until their seventies before needing a bungallow.

You buy a bungalow you are made for life.

[Number79]

You buy a bungalow you are made for life.

I couldn't manage for another 20 or 30 years without having the upstairs to retreat to or somewhere to send a naughty daughter.

[winkie]

I couldn't manage for another 20 or 30 years without having the upstairs to retreat to or somewhere to send a naughty daughter.

You could pull down the loft ladder and retreat to your den under the stars, no one would know you were there, if you invested in good sound installation .

When you got a bit older your daughter could take your place.

[huw]

The article pushes the idea that todays over 55's are having a far better time than the young, including the ownership of a nice home.

Need I say more?

Yes, tell us whether the over-55's were travelling the world, living in nice homes, etc. when they were 18-25.

[50sQuiff]

Yes, tell us whether the over-55's were travelling the world, living in nice homes, etc. when they were 18-25.

I think the point was more that 18-25s are currently in no position to build the lifestyle the previous generation thought owed to them. Unfortunately, it's those who are currently 18-25 that will be paying for their elders' sunny existence for the rest of their lives.

[Guest AuntJess]

I don't suppose that the Mirror has written this article with the intention of:

- deflecting attention away from the REAL villains of the piece.

- selling newspapers with some sensational 'revelation'

Seems that the 'boomers', if they be the villains, will always have the drop, on a younger generation that is as gullible as it is resentful.

[50sQuiff]

Ho-hum.

They will probably have a great property-buying opportunity in 2015-20.

I envy them !

Many will miss it, since they will be "too scarred and too scared" by then.

Good luck to the patient and smart ones that do buy then.

Of course there will definitely be an opportunity to buy well at some point. God knows I plan on being one of the smart/lucky/patient ones, but I'm not complacent.

I think the difference is that 30 years ago the ordinary man and his wife could realistically plan a comfortable retirement, with the welfare system, final salary pensions and the property market making their dream a reality. But now, young people are currently living on the edge of a financial precipice just to sustain their lifestyle, let alone plan for a stable and prosperous retirement. I think that's why the long-term future of the average person looks bleak.

The people I really feel for are those whose employment prospects are looking bleak for most of their formative years. The current crop of UK graduates, for instance. They've been promised the world, worked hard, paid a fortune in fees and racked up a lot of debt. If and when our economy recovers, will employers turn to them or the next crop of graduates? I've often read of this 'lost generation' phenomenon in post-stagnation Japan and don't see why it won't happen here too.

[Si1]

Yes, tell us whether the over-55's were travelling the world, living in nice homes, etc. when they were 18-25.

It is fair to say that those 18-25s not bothering to save for their future now don't deserve to expect opther poeple to pay for it for them. How come the boomers SHOULD be able to expect this?

[wonderpup]

I do wonder if the predicted mass sell off of homes by the boomers is a bit overdone- many will hang on to the house for reasons of sentiment unless absolutely forced to downsize by either health or financial reasons, which may be less people than is assumed.

[Si1]

I don't suppose that the Mirror has written this article with the intention of:

- deflecting attention away from the REAL villains of the piece.

- selling newspapers with some sensational 'revelation'

Seems that the 'boomers', if they be the villains, will always have the drop, on a younger generation that is as gullible as it is resentful.

so the reason that current crops of homebuyers are suffering so much is because they are stupid compared to the boomers?

how nice of you to think such giving thoughts.

[Si1]

That's a bit of a Myth.

Things were not as easy in those days as you may think.

For me, growing up in the USA, there were risks like being drafted and sent to Vietnam!

I missed getting caught in that by two weeks. My number was coming up, and two weeks

before I was called, they changed to an all-volunteer army.

Every generation faces some unique risks and opportunities of its own.

The property mania you grew up with, is both a boon and a bane.

Many poor folk will get sucked into it, and suffer some real financial hardship, even though they

may think themselves fortunate at teh time they buy.

And the boomers, happily sending money borrowed against their homes, may find themselves

impoverished by that in old age.

I agree, I think there is a rebalancing taking place, the patient younger generations wil reap some rewards for this - including prospect for a reasonable retirement

[porca misèria]

I think the difference is that 30 years ago the ordinary man and his wife could realistically plan a comfortable retirement, with the welfare system, final salary pensions and the property market making their dream a reality. But now, young people are currently living on the edge of a financial precipice just to sustain their lifestyle, let alone plan for a stable and prosperous retirement. I think that's why the long-term future of the average person looks bleak.

30 years ago[1] we were far less affluent than young people today. Certainly no question of buying big things like a house or car until you had significant experience and a somewhat-senior job.

But beyond that, I see for example in our opera company, quite a few youngsters are professionally trained, and a whole lot more proficient than their elders. When I was a twentysomething, none of us had that kind of training. I think that demonstrates the kind of increased affluence of today's younger generation. Along with more obvious trappings of wealth like the "gap year" and cheap travel.

But of course, most of that's based on having rich parents. Then it was the few, now it's the many whose parents can treat their teenagers and young adults to a bit of luxury.

[1] or just a little less, to put it on my personal timescale: 30 years ago I was between school and university ...

[gotoutintime]

broadly incorrect, living standards in Africa and especially Asia are taking leaps and bounds as their economies gradually improve, and they still have a culture of physically helping their elderly within the family, instead of expensive state borrowing to sustain them. having said that, yes we are wealthier than them so should be reasonably grateful. no excuse for squandering so much of it the way the powers that be have tho.

I have been living in a decent subdivision in Philippines for almost a year now but outside of the subdivision I do see the poverty, still there to a great degree. Agreed the culture is still there to help the elder members of the family which I think is a great idea, the State would not help them nor will it help the people who have chronic illnesses like diabetes, kidney failure, cancers etc. They are left to fend for themselves or if penniless, they face a sometimes slow, painful death.

Granted, parts of these countries are doing very well but only the parts the governments want you to see, or the financial business districts. Sorry but knowing what these people local to me go through, I feel that people who are classed as below the poverty line in Britain are still a fair bit better off than some here who have to sleep during the day because of their hunger. Now that South Korea are pulling many manufacturing businesses out of the Philippines the unemployment is rocketing here too. Corruption amongst government, police and other officials will always keep the less well off with not enough for a staple diet.

[huw]

It is fair to say that those 18-25s not bothering to save for their future now don't deserve to expect opther poeple to pay for it for them. How come the boomers SHOULD be able to expect this?

Anybody can expect whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, expectation doesn't have to be deserved. Who knows what the 18-25's who aren't saving, expect? I doubt very much they expect to starve or freeze.

What people expect is irrelevant. It's what happens -- what people do -- that counts. What people did, to the great benefit of many boomers (and STRs) was to take on ridiculous levels of debt to inflate an asset bubble. Boomers are no more to blame for this than STRs.

[Si1]

Anybody can expect whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, expectation doesn't have to be deserved. Who knows what the 18-25's who aren't saving, expect? I doubt very much they expect to starve or freeze.

What people expect is irrelevant. It's what happens -- what people do -- that counts. What people did, to the great benefit of many boomers (and STRs) was to take on ridiculous levels of debt to inflate an asset bubble. Boomers are no more to blame for this than STRs.

sounds a fair point.

I suspect I have felt at crossed purposes to you. My truck is not with the house price bubble, this is not particularly to blame on anything other than the vagaries of group psychology, but it has p**sed me off a lot, but thaqt is besides the point.

My concern is the cross-subsidy via taxes of boomers' retirements by younger generations. I actually doubt this will happen due to a few things.

As you said, what people expect is irrelevent. Maybe I should chill. Regards.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Si1

[corevalue]

sounds a fair point.

I suspect I have felt at crossed purposes to you. My truck is not with the house price bubble, this is not particularly to blame on anything other than the vagaries of group psychology, but it has p**sed me off a lot, but thaqt is besides the point.

My concern is the cross-subsidy via taxes of boomers' retirements by younger generations. I actually doubt this will happen due to a few things.

As you said, what people expect is irrelevent. Maybe I should chill. Regards.

Young man, we were made a promise by the government, as you are being "promised" today. Pay your taxes now, and receive the benefits in the future. The boomers you talk of mostly have a history of forty years paying taxes and dues; you have little or none. Do not imagine for a moment you are subsidising them: they subsidised you. A boomer who stayed single, still paid for your education, your health, and all the other benefits you enjoyed free as you were growing up. He also paid for the pensions of his parents, and didn't complain. Why do the current young people feel they a peculiarly deprived?

Now we (boomers) face the broken promises, the pensions we expected and planned and PAID for are unlikely to materialise, because the banksters have made fools of all of us, and are busy trying to "divide and conquer", setting young against old. Our private pensions are worthless, the state pension meagre and falling in real value year by year as the inflation figures are fiddled.

I was asked the other day, what fraction of our household income went on housing back in the 70's. I replied about a third of gross income. Interest rates were at 14%, and houses weren't suddenly cheaper. The questioner was astonished - how could we live on so little. The answer was, frugally. It seems many today don't know what it is to live within their means.

[Si1]

Young man, we were made a promise by the government, as you are being "promised" today. Pay your taxes now, and receive the benefits in the future. The boomers you talk of mostly have a history of forty years paying taxes and dues; you have little or none.

sorry but this quote marks you at as remarkably off the mark in this argument - if boomers are betwen 40 and 55 then how on earth do they 'mostly have a history of 40 years paying taxes'

if you are mistaken and actually NOT a boomer - then I respect you, as I respect others in their 60s and 70s who have built this modern country, but your taxes got spent on the following generation, and there's nothing left for those following on again afterwards, or indeed your own benefits. It would be interesting to see the wording of this 'promise' you speak of. Or is it heresay?

edit: btw, I appreciate that I have got off mark from the over 55s so feel free to shoot me down for this, I have to correct myself for my own cross-generational blurring

Edited July 4, 2009 by Si1

[Si1]

deleted

Edited July 4, 2009 by Si1

[corevalue]

sorry but this quote marks you at as remarkably off the mark in this argument - if boomers are betwen 40 and 55 then how on earth do they 'mostly have a history of 40 years paying taxes'

if you are mistaken and actually NOT a boomer - then I respect you, as I respect others in their 60s and 70s who have built this modern country, but your taxes got spent on the following generation, and there's nothing left for those following on again afterwards, or indeed your own benefits. It would be interesting to see the wording of this 'promise' you speak of. Or is it heresay?

old man.

edit: btw, I appreciate that I have got off mark from the over 55s so feel free to shoot me down for this, I have to correct myself for my own cross-generational blurring

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to boomers as the generation just coming up to retirement, and as in the thread title - as you say, cross-generational blurring. What is happening, I think, is that a great deal of noise is made about pension entitlements that the "boomers" expected to receive, and the fact that the money isn't there to pay for them. The fact that the boomers aren't actually a UK phenomenon, and that the real (US) boomers are twenty years from getting their pensions, seems to be getting lost. Perhaps the better term for the group would be "Thatcher's Children" (or Reagan's Spawn)- those who came of age, in the age of greed.

To me, the epitome of the syndrome, were those who bought their council houses cheap under Thatcher's "right to buy", and sold for vast profit years later, laughing all the way to their villas on the Costa Plenty. To make it worse, local councils weren't allowed to use the receipts to provide more council housing, thus generating an artificial shortage in property to rent. This contributed, IMV, in no small way to the house price rises of the last twenty years.

[Minos]

The article pushes the idea that todays over 55's are having a far better time than the young, including the ownership of a nice home.

Need I say more?

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Si1]

corevalue - ok, fair enough, I've drawn my claws in and deleted my 2nd to last post...