Monday, Feb 22, 2010
Don't blame it on the sunshine,Don't blame it on the moonlight, blame it on the Boomers...
Times online: Crisis? Blame the baby-boomers, not the bankers
In a persuasive book called The Pinch, Mr Willetts redefines many of the key public policy issues of our lifetimes in terms of the self-interest and electoral dominance of the huge generation of baby-boomers. His argument is well summarised by the book’s sub-title: “How the baby- boomers took their children’s future — and why they should give it back.”
Posted by sold out @ 11:04 AM (1924 views) Add Comment
25 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. freemanphil said...
The baby boomers took our future by not educating themselves about real issues and by not getting politically active, but they were provided bread and circuses by the establishment, and, they were provided stock and house market casino's to keep them occupied.
That said, it was the bankers who engineered this. What I say is, that baby boomers must take responsibility, most are in childish denial right now, but, the bankers are most certainly to blame. Its like, a man forgets to lock his front door and a thief comes in and steals his stuff. The victim must take responsibility, but the thief must pay compensation and go to jail.
2. braindeed said...
This article is succinct and it's arguments at the fulcrum of our economic malaise. Current immigration policy is to bring in coolies to pay taxes to support the unsupportable - in effect recreating the problem a generation hence. Actuaries fortold a disaster in the early eighties when a certain ladiy sanctioned inflation-proof pensions for her storm-troops and other lucky civil servants.I cannpot see a solution to the grey block vote - theres too many of them for any party to offend......and naked oppertunism prevents the cross-party concensus needed to hack back the lush green grass that the old biddies MEW upon.
I feel for youngsters, this new bunch of talent are being harshly screwed.
3. i remember the 90`s said...
What a load of tosh.
4. tenant super said...
As I have said elsewhere, the boomers simply availed themselved of the advantageous circumstances they found themselves in (in certain respects) as many human beings would. It is easy to complain about a given demographic but if I were a young Afghan male, I would probably try and get into Britain; if I had received little cultural capital and education, perhaps I'd be living with my kids on benefits; and if I and Mr TS had been baby boomers, maybe we'd have a nice detached house in Surrey, a cottage in the Slieve mountains and a villa in Andalucia and want to retire at 65 to enjoy it. The boomers are selfish but no more selfish than any other generation.
If nothing else, this highlights the flaw with democracy. If you're trying to buy people's vote, then policy will simply favour the largest demographic of voters as this article points out. As braindeed points out, he thing about the boomers is that there are so many of them, the political parties have to keep them sweet.
5. icarus said...
Make them work at 70 when there aren't the jobs for 24-year-olds? He says the sheer size of the bb generation made for temporary "exaggerated economic growth potential". What does this mean? That a larger working-age population leads to greater economic growth potential (why only 'potential'?). Let's bring in more eastern Europeans then. Sure, ageing populations around the developed world will be an increasing problem for government finances over the next few decades but most of the current deficits are cyclical (recession-related) rather than structural. It's the banksters, stupid.
We should start by making Kaletsky do some useful work.
6. mark wadsworth said...
Re what TS says, I have no moral objection to people playing the system - with my taxpayer's hat on, I think flogging off council houses at large discounts is an outrage; but when friends have asked me what to do, I have always told them to buy.
Similarly, I did well out of property, but have never been a NIMBY or objected to any planning application and I have never whined about Council Tax (which is stupendously good value, really, seeing as most 'local services' are paid out of general taxation).
So it's not the people who play the system whom I blame, it is the people who devised the system (for planning regulation, property taxation) - and I do think that the Home-Owner-Ists have very much influenced the rules in their favour with all sorts of spurious excuses like "Protecting the hallowed green belt" or "preserving the character of the area" or saying that "property taxes are an attack on wealth" (if they are, then what on earth is income tax or VAT if not an attack on wealth creation?)
And so on.
7. gone-to-colombia said...
Well done for pointing the obvious, clearly, it is the present generation that has caused the problems of this generation.
Could be the start of a 'wonderful' thesis to gain a worthless doctorate?
8. letthemfall said...
The boomer part of the article is ridiculous. Blaming an age group is absurd, especially when you consider that many so-called boomers are poor. Some of the wealthiest people I know are pre-boomers, and there are plenty of wealthy post-boomers. The true problem is distribution of wealth. The tax system favours the rich, and all sorts of spurious arguments are put up to justify its continuation. Wealth is created by anyone who does useful work. But the fruits of this wealth creation are not distributed accordingly.
9. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
10. vacuouspolitician said...
Mixed views about this article. There is good and bad in all generations - can't just blame the situation on one generation. The blame for the latest fiasco has to land at the door of policy makers and bankers. Both equally greedy and self-serving. Selling off council houses and public utilities in the 80s was a very terrible move and started the ball rolling with this 'get-rich-quick' mentality that we still see today.
I have to say that SOME of the people on this site are hypocrites and charlatans ...how many times have I read an article, skimmed down the comments and read that "I could go out and buy a house for cash tomorrow" - blaming everyone just because they aren't filling their boots - MOST have made money out of the housing boom(s) and are lying in wait to profit from the misery that might follow. The only people I feel sorry for are the young generation (and some quite clearly are on this site) that appear to have not much hope of owning a decent place for a decent price.
Jar Jar Spoon Spoon.
11. p. doff said...
The baby-boomer hate campaign is just the latest distraction. Oh how easy it is to con the sheople and divert attention. Everybody needs somebody else to blame don't they.
12. gone-to-colombia said...
Braindeed @ 9. Beware before you make such assumptions, - not old, and still very much working.
Further, even though I literally am in Colombia, my attention and wealth remain in the UK.
And as for 'old t...sers - even if I were there is not excuse for insults.
You do nothing to add to your argument, thus.
13. braindeed said...
10. vacuouspolitician said...
Mixed views about this article. There is good and bad in all generations - can't just blame the situation on one generation.
I can't blame the boomers for being born. I can see people would be affroted if the whole plan they'd set up for retirement was torn up.
I do think that the actuaries responsible for forward planning never made clear enough the consequences of taxation policy during the good years. The boomers had free higher education, jobs in industries left to fail (in this country), fairly priced housing, and a land considerable less crowded.
The new generation coming up are in debt from education, vying with 'competitive' coolies from everywhere on the globe for jobs in service industries. A generation ago, a graduate with a reasonable degree could expect to move into a comfortable semi with gardens after a shortish time. Today they'll save for years to buy a damp basement, and whilst there paying for granny's pension through taxation ( was always so - for the boomers too)...... they're being told to save for their own, because there'll effectively be no state pension.
Not nice - but there it is.
14. braindeed said...
7. gone-to-colombia said...
Well done for pointing the obvious, clearly, it is the present generation that has caused the problems of this generation.
Plain wrong.
Could be the start of a 'wonderful' thesis to gain a worthless doctorate?
That is a crass generalisation.
I don't think any argument is worth getting itto with you......dogma is iron coated
15. letthemfall said...
Globalisation (which is almost a euphemism for a low wage economy) has affected young and old alike (plenty of people in their late 40s and 50s who are made redundant can not find another job). It is true that since around 1990 many of the central values of an advanced culture have been taken away - free education the most significant, and today's students certainly suffer there. But conversely the young benefit from better nutrition, better health care, and, despite globalisation, a better range of opportunities. And if house prices do fall back to low levels, as many reasonably expect, being young is a definite advantage: they have plenty of time to pay for one, unlike someone who is closer to the end of their working life. And of course there is employers' age discrimination - the young benefit there too.
16. rumble said...
Poor Mr G... if he eventually remembers where he left his bifocals, he's not going to enjoy reading this thread.
17. rumble said...
Everyone keeps blaming one or another of the players in a game set up by government, which is currently in a position hardly indicative of all that's gone on.
18. gone-to-colombia said...
Irony is lost on you
19. Corriander said...
Willitts is correct that it is a demographic problem that is the cause of increasing impoverishment on the lower strata of societies but it is not really much to do with the baby boomers. They are just a red herring
It is more to do with the massive global population boom of the last 30 odd years and the increase of globalisation that has given employers access to swathes of new workers and the chance to play workers in the west off against those in the developing world thereby completely disempowering the common man
Whenever there is a small elite and an enourmous number of workers the workers always share a smaller portion of the pie and the elite a larger
The credit crunch was merely the mechanism by which the elite have clawed back wealth, which the lower classes by dint of their swollen numbers and consequent lack of power, are not longer able to protect from the elite
The credit crunch will signal permanent lower standards of living for the lower stratas of society who have been disempowered by their own excess supply
20. enuii said...
Started reading this but stopped when I relised that it was by that waste of newspaper print Anatole Kaletsky.
The man is a hopeless popularist as his articles over the last few years have consistently proved who changes his spots to match the mainstream background as often as a chameleon does.
21. braindeed said...
18. gone-to-colombia said...
Irony is lost on you
Really?
22. tenant super said...
Here's the Guardian's response:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/willietts-blame-generation-thatcher
23. alan_540 said...
This is not a failure of the "baby boomer generation" and it's plainly wrong to blame them. The government is responsible for policy over the last 12 years. Don't forget that while we have enjoyed the illusion of increased personal wealth (increasing home equity, MEW'ing & cheap personal loans) they have enjoyed the political fallout - everything's rosy chaps keep voting for us! What we have seen is very poor management both economically & socially and I hope for a return to sanity very soon. It would be fun to see Labour voted back in to enjoy the sights of them having to fix the problems they've caused (as a few here have suggested) - such as Brown explaining that when he said there were to be no cuts in spending he didn't really mean that at all and that 20% cuts across the board are somehow congruent with that. Whilst entertaining I wouldn't wish that upon us for another 5 years!
24. Ndg said...
Must get rid of that "Spending the kids inheritance" bumper sticker from the Jag.
25. braindeed said...
New Labour has governed three terms, and each time elected, it has been hamstrung by the population's expectation of of a kinder but essentially Thatcherite laissire faire taxation regime.Some may point out that they have been in power for 12 years and that theres no one else to blame - I'd say that the population's (excluding the saints who frequent this blog, of course) expectation of ever increasing 'wealth' (same crap houses....bigger 'value') would have meant that they would have been out on their @rses if they'd deviated from that tack. I don't know how we can extracate ourselfs from the morras....build more houses, and the GDP goes up resulting in more net immigration, resulting in same 'shortage'. There's no will to change.I've also come to the conclusion that this blog is a sad place insofar as I have yet to witness anyone acknowledge an epiphany with regard to anothers point of view.Maggie was right.....there is no 'Us', only 'I'.
Thirty years of varying degrees of right of centre failed govermence, suggest we may have to accept that it's just the way we are (as a nation)......clueless.