[gotoutintime]

Si1, on Jul 4 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

well said that man.

boomers have a major psychological weakness - they can barely remember a time when wealth DIDN'T randomly fall into their lap - a former (boomer) boss of mine said, when I suggested hard times could be ahead 'no - there'll just be another scam to make money, BT privatisation, demutualised building societies, house prices, money will come from somewhere'

Whose fault is it if they are born into a generation that experiences above average growth or into one that struggles in the early years? I suppose that at 50 I am probably classed as one of the hated "boomer generation" but only ever had an average or less than average salary. From 1992 when I bought my first house in a cr"p area (rough in Slough) to 1997 I was always close to going under due to the mortgage and a car loan.

Agreed some boomers have had it easy from the start with large inheritances or gifts from rich parents but not all of us had it that way. There have been some good growth years along the way for equities and property and they maybe not around again for some years to come but eventually it will return.

I can say honestly that wealth never fell into my lap apart from the HP inflation, never had free shares from mutuals or privatisation shares off of BT etc. To make a change in my life I took a second job and invested the wages into risky shares and spread betting, really just a gamble that paid off.

Maybe a larger proportion of boomers than you think have had a hard time over at least some of their years, many of my friends around the same age are still renting a room in a shared house and will also be working till they drop. Some after getting made redundant in their later years are finding themselves locked out of any job.

But after all, whenever your struggles happen in life there will always be someone harder off than you with absolutely no hope of life getting better (parts of Asia and Africa come to mind)

[winkie]

I cast my mind back when I purchased my first property, I had to buy it for 3 times what they had bought it for only a few years previously, during that time house price increases went up relative to income and inflation, a deposit was mandatory.

What has happened since 1997 onwards to create this unnatural and man made bubble and the debt created to do this has decimated a healthy thriving economy...we will all have to pay for it one way or another, there will be no winners.

[crouch]

Si1, on Jul 4 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

this isn't about the elderly you nitwit

Can you read the large print at the top of the page?

[R K]

Not another of these pathetic "old people stole my home" threads.

House prices are cyclical. Just like business cycles. Like it or not - that's life. We've now got a bust, prices have fallen 1/4 and are still falling and so it is an opportunity in due course to buy and those with homes are now losing capital they thought they had - FAST.

So why would anyone think that someone who has WORKED for over 30 years shouldn't be able to have a nice home?

It's not rocket science - you save up a deposit and you buy at the bottom of the cycle. If you're unlucky enough to want to buy near the top of a cycle - YOU WAIT.

[porca misèria]

ROBinGLOS, on Jul 4 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

It's much to easy to generalise, good and bad in young and old, surely!!

Bzzt. You can't go around posting commonsense here. Must try harder

[steve99]

Sadman, on Jul 4 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

The two are not unconnected. The vampiric baby boomer generation has bled this country dry. Not content with that, they hence intend to bleed every future generation of oppurtunity too. Bear this in mind everytime you see one whinging about theyre second home in spain, or the cost of filling up the jag and so on.

Except that you are so far off track (like this thread and the newspaper article) The UK did not have the massive BBoom population explosion that the US did back in the late 40's through to the 60's due to the never ending poverty we suffered for a solid 20 years following WW2. We had a small blip at the end of WW2. The UK's actual boom in population is now aged around 42 years old and if you do your reasearch you will find out that this age group had in fact the best in everything, free education at all levels, the best jobs in history with the highest pay levels achieved at much younger age groups than previous generations etc etc. they also are much more heavily in BTL than the so called baby boomers were at a similar age and had the massive advantage of having the cheapest property since the war (re wages etc) during the .early 90's. You also have to take into account that older people have always held the lead with asset ownership, which is what happens if you save up for long enough or get lucky with inherritance.

gotoutintime, on Jul 4 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

Whose fault is it if they are born into a generation that experiences above average growth or into one that struggles in the early years? I suppose that at 50 I am probably classed as one of the hated "boomer generation" but only ever had an average or less than average salary. From 1992 when I bought my first house in a cr"p area (rough in Slough) to 1997 I was always close to going under due to the mortgage and a car loan.

Agreed some boomers have had it easy from the start with large inheritances or gifts from rich parents but not all of us had it that way. There have been some good growth years along the way for equities and property and they maybe not around again for some years to come but eventually it will return.

I can say honestly that wealth never fell into my lap apart from the HP inflation, never had free shares from mutuals or privatisation shares off of BT etc. To make a change in my life I took a second job and invested the wages into risky shares and spread betting, really just a gamble that paid off.

Maybe a larger proportion of boomers than you think have had a hard time over at least some of their years, many of my friends around the same age are still renting a room in a shared house and will also be working till they drop. Some after getting made redundant in their later years are finding themselves locked out of any job.

But after all, whenever your struggles happen in life there will always be someone harder off than you with absolutely no hope of life getting better (parts of Asia and Africa come to mind)

I agree, what goes on show for the rest to see as usual is the well picked examples which like a show-trial is to make a point without regard to the many other factors that should be bought into play. 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.
The comming recession may well set up todays 25- 35 year olds with the opportunities of a lifetime just like previous recessions gave a lucky few the opportunity to hoover up assets after others lost out.
I say 'comming recession' on account of the fact that we have nowhere near aproached the depth of any of the previous recessions that I can remember (yet, that is)

[Si1]

crouch, on Jul 4 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

Can you read the large print at the top of the page?

yes. can you?

[Si1]

steve99, on Jul 4 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

Except that you are so far off track (like this thread and the newspaper article) The UK did not have the massive BBoom population explosion that the US did back in the late 40's through to the 60's due to the never ending poverty we suffered for a solid 20 years following WW2. We had a small blip at the end of WW2. The UK's actual boom in population is now aged around 42 years old and if you do your reasearch you will find out that this age group had in fact the best in everything, free education at all levels, the best jobs in history with the highest pay levels achieved at much younger age groups than previous generations etc etc. they also are much more heavily in BTL than the so called baby boomers were at a similar age and had the massive advantage of having the cheapest property since the war (re wages etc) during the .early 90's. You also have to take into account that older people have always held the lead with asset ownership, which is what happens if you save up for long enough or get lucky with inherritance.

indeed, the age pyramid for uk shows a medium boom currently in their late 50s and a much bigger one currently in their mid 40s



(2001 census diagram)

This post has been edited by Si1: 04 July 2009 - 11:36 AM

[Si1]

gotoutintime, on Jul 4 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

Maybe a larger proportion of boomers than you think have had a hard time over at least some of their years, many of my friends around the same age are still renting a room in a shared house and will also be working till they drop. Some after getting made redundant in their later years are finding themselves locked out of any job.

true, it's not so black and white. I suspect some of this relates to the LAST house price crash...?

Quote

But after all, whenever your struggles happen in life there will always be someone harder off than you with absolutely no hope of life getting better (parts of Asia and Africa come to mind)

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.

This post has been edited by Si1: 04 July 2009 - 11:43 AM

[Number79]

DrBubb, on Jul 4 2009, 03:17 AM, said:

How long will it last, do you reckon?
They will have to sell their homes to the now-young at some stage.

What price do you think they will get?



I'm sorry, but that is totally ridiculous!
They have BORROWED the money, not "sucked (the young) dry".

If you are intelligent, you can see what the game is.
It is a WAITING GAME. The boomers will have to sell the assets, to fund their retirements.
There are a smaller number of buyers.

What should you do. Need I say more?

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?

[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.

This post has been edited by linuxgeek: 04 July 2009 - 12:02 PM

[Si1]

richyc, on Jul 4 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

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]

steve99, on Jul 4 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

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]

Si1, on Jul 4 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

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]

richyc, on Jul 4 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

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.