Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Lost Generation


Olivera

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Funny thread is funny.

Boomers who think they have a pension and decades of unproductive retirement that will be paid for by the labour of the young

A youth that still believe they have a future with productive employment and a standard living to match their parents

Oh and a bunch somewhere in between the two that know it's their wealth and labour will be taxed to ensure that what left of the country doesn’t fall into the sea

Frankly anyone born post 1980, you've only yourself to blame, you really should have decided to be born earlier.

Timing is, after all, everything.

A welcome contribution, especially the last paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 492
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

You go work it out. It applies to any house. Yes Im in the north, but the same comparity works wherever you are. If you're paying 60% of your income now for the area you wish to live in, youll find that that your 'property' ancestor paid an equivalent/higher % than you for your same house. You just have to make sure that you calculate the value of your current earning to its equivalent value in lets say 1965 / 1975 whenever, and the 'cost' of the mortgage at that time. Interest rates have NEVER been this low at anytime in our history.

No, I will not.

You made a statement.

I've asked you to back it up.

Either you do that, or you admit that your statement was a load of testicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

First,

Low interest rates are of no use to FTB'ers at present......... because the spread is so high that they aren't the rates FTB'ers are paying. The BoE base rate might be 0.5%........... but the best 90%LTV mortgage is still 5% (tracker, fixed to 4.5% over base rate) and the best 85% LTV is 4.29% (fixed to 3.79 over BR and requiring dual-graduate-applicants).

Whatsmore........ they are, because of their high fix, repossessions waiting to happen. When the BoE rate gets back to a more normal 3%, those mortgages will be at 7.5%. If it goes to 5% they'll be 9.5% mortgages ! Couple that in with the fact that such a rise in Interest rates probably mean that the 10% deposit will be wiped off the value of the house, and so you'll be stuck with that rate, makes it VERY dicey for FTB'ers right now.

They may look like cheap mortgages to you, Mr 40%-deposit-in-the-bank, getting a 2.5% mortgage.......... they aren't cheap for us ....... Mr 10%-if-we're-lucky-and-still-paying-off-a-15k-student-loan, getting a 5-6% mortgage with a high fixed spread.

Second,

You aren't comparing apples to apples.......... sure, your first mortgage may have been 40% of your income 30 years ago......... and only 25% of your income today....... but thats largely because 30 years ago you were paid an entry level wage, and now you are on EL + 30 years experience.

Go BACK to an entry level wage (as you were then) and I bet your mortgage would still be 40%+ today. You can't compare "40% of a bank tellers wage back then" to "25% of a bank managers wage" today and tell me thats a fair comparison. OF COURSE your mortgage is cheaper as a % of your income NOW....... you are a much more experienced worker now.

FTB'ers are (of course) at or much closer to that entry level wage than you are. Most are still tellers, not managers. It's true that "we've never had it so good" as FTB'ers..........only if you assume every FTB'er has a massive ÂŁ100k+ deposit and the kind of job 50 year olds hold.

Yours,

TGP

I am comparing apples with apples. I am not stating 40% of income 30 years ago is 25% of todays income. I explained you need to calculate todays income value to the point in history you want to compare. I am stating its is more affordable' now, as it was 30 years ago , comparing the 'cost' of buying 30 years ago against earning. Whichever way you may want to try and manipulate this, we bought on an average 10% mortgage. Today your buying on an average 5% mortgage. That is where you double the multiple of income calculation. We bought at 3 x salary, on 10%. The balance would be 6 x salary at 5%. We had to save between 10 and 20% deposit, which was as seemingly unachievable at the time to us, as it currently is to you. But we did do it. The boomers NEVER had the luxury of 100% mortgages.

If your gripe is now the boomers who are bought up property in the 2000's, then say so. I would agree that the last 10 years of 'property developers' are at the root of this, however, I personally only know 1 couple in their 50's who did that , and we responded with why would you want to take on a risk at this stage in life? At 50, you dont have 30 years guaranteed earning capacity ahead of you, to 'hedge' your bets. Whereas in comparison, my kids know roughly half their friends in their 20's jumped on the band wagon. I would say to us, it appears the greed of the 20 somethings 'Im going to make a fortune in property', was purely the past time of the 'lost generation'. We, as boomers, just paid our debts off like we were brought up to do.

Edited by Haventaclue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

so people who are currently 25 were guilty, at the age of 15, of developing the deficit.

well said.

They've had seven/eight years of adulthood, then.

If during that time they signed up for a liar loan or got into debt they couldn't repay, they contributed.

If they took their shilling from Brown's public-sector/welfare-bloat, they contributed.

If they had bubble-pumping jobs, they contributed.

If they voted New Labour, they contributed.

And (according to logic displayed earlier on this thread) simply by not doing whatever it would take to fix things for the NEXT generation, they are culpable.

Edited by huw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446

They've had seven/eight years of adulthood, then.

If during that time they signed up for a liar loan or got into debt they couldn't repay, they contributed.

If they took their shilling from Brown's public-sector/welfare-bloat, they contributed.

If they had bubble-pumping jobs, they contributed.

If they voted New Labour, they contributed.

And (according to logic displayed earlier on this thread) simply by not doing whatever it would take to fix things for the NEXT generation, they are culpable.

@tis fair - if the current lot could kick the can, they almost certainly would. But they can't, hence the QQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

A welcome contribution, especially the last paragraph.

You're welcome.

Maybe you missed it as sarcasm

But still anyone born post 1980 is screwed, more or less. But what do you propose, besides shouting at old people.

I dislike the grumbling old bastards as much as the next guy, but lets be honest they've been lied to as much as anyone else. Pensions, paid for by their lifetime contributions, good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

You may want to check out the statistics, about 70% out of the 95Billion is spent on care of the elderly.

Whilst it's always fun to rage at trauma victims, it's the long term health care of those 60-80 that really costs.

Why is it so high though?

I wonder what it would be if NHS salaries hadn't had their New Labour upgrade -- from which current and future generations of NHS workers will benefit, as compared to past ones (assuming the spending is sustainable that is :))

On the broad issue: health costs related to ageing are clearly a nettle that ought to be grasped (but won't be, naturally). However, people born in the 50s/60s are unlikely to be filling geriatric wards just yet ... but by all means let's move on to a general ageist rant, instead of a boomer-focused one :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

I am comparing apples with apples. I am not stating 40% of income 30 years ago is 25% of todays income. I explained you need to calculate todays income value to the point in history you want to compare. I am stating its is more affordable' now, as it was 30 years ago , comparing the 'cost' of buying 30 years ago against earning. Whichever way you may want to try and manipulate this, we bought on an average 10% mortgage. Today your buying on an average 5% mortgage. That is where you double the multiple of income calculation. We bought at 3 x salary, on 10%. The balance would be 6 x salary at 5%. We had to save between 10 and 20% deposit, which was as seemingly unachievable at the time to us, as it currently is to you. But we did do it. The boomers NEVER had the luxury of 100% mortgages.

If your gripe is now the boomers who are bought up property in the 2000's, then say so. I would agree that the last 10 years of 'property developers' are at the root of this, however, I personally only know 1 couple in their 50's who did that , and we responded with why would you want to take on a risk at this stage in life? At 50, you dont have 30 years guaranteed earning capacity ahead of you, to 'hedge' your bets. Whereas in comparison, my kids know roughly half their friends in their 20's jumped on the band wagon. I would say to us, it appears the greed of the 20 somethings 'Im going to make a fortune in property', was purely the past time of the 'lost generation'. We, as boomers, just paid our debts off like we were brought up to do.

The luxury of 100% mortgages!, how is it a luxury exposing yourself to negative equity the moment you purchase?, the reason 100% mortgages and 125% came to market is quite simply because rental costs made it nigh on impossible for most to build a deposit, it was the best method to extend the bubble for the banks. I suppose you think rental costs are also comparable to 30 years ago despite being price fixed to a large extent back then, 100% mortgages are not a luxury they are part of the problem the UK is going to face over the coming years, they were simply a method of extending the debt boom. There was also the luxury of liar loans i suppose.

I dont absolve the feckless for taking them out but part of me understands why

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

They've had seven/eight years of adulthood, then.

If during that time they signed up for a liar loan or got into debt they couldn't repay, they contributed.

If they took their shilling from Brown's public-sector/welfare-bloat, they contributed.

If they had bubble-pumping jobs, they contributed.

If they voted New Labour, they contributed.

And (according to logic displayed earlier on this thread) simply by not doing whatever it would take to fix things for the NEXT generation, they are culpable.

but the majority of the national debt private or public is either (a ) pension deficits (publiuc and private) or (b ) MEW. Some of the latter, and certainly wrt BTL, is the under 35s, but most of all of it is definitely the earlier generation's bill, handily passed to the later to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412

The luxury of 100% mortgages!, how is it a luxury exposing yourself to negative equity the moment you purchase?, the reason 100% mortgages and 125% came to market is quite simply because rental costs made it nigh on impossible for most to build a deposit, it was the best method to extend the bubble for the banks. I suppose you think rental costs are also comparable to 30 years ago despite being price fixed to a large extent back then, 100% mortgages arn their 20s, and then told e not a luxury they are part of the problem the UK is going to face over the coming years, they were simply a method of extending the debt boom. There was also the luxury of liar loans i suppose.

I dont absolve the feckless for taking them out but part of me understands why

too true - it is frstrating on the one hand to be accused of being the first generation to have credit cards, and then be told to go and take out 100% mortgages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

Brilliant! And the sooner we go back to sending kids up the chimneys, unpaid holidays, and making sure that only graduate professionals can get healthcare the better.................... Gratitude hey. I so wish Id left a nation with a 60 hour working week, 1 weeks annual holiday a year, no pension provision, no healthcare entitlement, and as to the vulnerable and dependant, well the alleged 'lost generation' say they can just go die for the burden that they are.

Brilliant. Not only whiners but completely showing a selfishness that is really quite disgusting. You need to speak to a mining family to understand what they sacrificed for your 'future'.

I'm from a mining family. My grandparents bought their first house from the NCB, for.... 80% of a years wages (he was a deputy tho, ie management)/ A 3 bed semi.

My dad bought his first house 25 years later, for 3x his annual salary. He was a fairly low paid pit-top worker (lampman). A 3 bed semi.

My two uncles both bought their own houses (3 bed semis if you must know). Both retired early through ill health on 75% wages with cash lump sum enough to pay the mortgages off.

The most notable differences between now and then are that houses were significanty cheaper (around twice as affordable), and wage increases managed to render the mortgage payments almost irrelevant over the years. My parents paid less on their mortgage than their council tax for as long as I could remember.

My dad of course worked double shifts occasionally, so we could have a bit more not so we could pay the mortgage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

Why is it so high though?

I don't know, because it can?

Not sure what's to be grasped

We'll just move to a 2 tiered system, with pseudo private health for those that can pay, and secondary system, paid for by increased taxation. So the best of both worlds, were we get to pay tax for a national healthcare system that is functionally broken, and if you want reasonable healthcare you get to pay again, privately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

I'm from a mining family. My grandparents bought their first house from the NCB, for.... 80% of a years wages (he was a deputy tho, ie management)/ A 3 bed semi.

My dad bought his first house 25 years later, for 3x his annual salary. He was a fairly low paid pit-top worker (lampman). A 3 bed semi.

My two uncles both bought their own houses (3 bed semis if you must know). Both retired early through ill health on 75% wages with cash lump sum enough to pay the mortgages off.

The most notable differences between now and then are that houses were significanty cheaper (around twice as affordable), and wage increases managed to render the mortgage payments almost irrelevant over the years. My parents paid less on their mortgage than their council tax for as long as I could remember.

My dad of course worked double shifts occasionally, so we could have a bit more not so we could pay the mortgage.

what year was your dad born in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

The luxury of 100% mortgages!, how is it a luxury exposing yourself to negative equity the moment you purchase?, the reason 100% mortgages and 125% came to market is quite simply because rental costs made it nigh on impossible for most to build a deposit, it was the best method to extend the bubble for the banks. I suppose you think rental costs are also comparable to 30 years ago despite being price fixed to a large extent back then, 100% mortgages are not a luxury they are part of the problem the UK is going to face over the coming years, they were simply a method of extending the debt boom. There was also the luxury of liar loans i suppose.

Partaking of an available luxury is not always wise B)

I'm not sure that rents were historically high as a percentage of income; I think that HPI itself put deposits out of reach (and this should have been an automatic market limiter).

The banks bypassed this built-in limit by means of 100+% loans and loar loans and a lot of hand-waving over risk -- their way of getting more bubble-pumping fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418

If during that time they signed up for a liar loan or got into debt they couldn't repay, they contributed.

Trying your best to house yourself isn't much of a contribution. The receiver of their coerced payment, the guy sitting on real estate as an investment is making a far larger contribution to the problem. When trying to house yourself is described as trouble-making, you know somebody is trying to obfuscate

And (according to logic displayed earlier on this thread) simply by not doing whatever it would take to fix things for the NEXT generation, they are culpable.

The reason nothing much could be modified, even when it became obvious it would fall apart was that boomers stood to lose very badly by any reform that made the economy workable. This went on for years

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

Nope.

Out of the ÂŁ95 billion a year NHS budget, 70% of it is spent on elderly care.

Your 9 billion contribution from house possession leaves a 60 billion shortfall which is paid for by taxing workers...

Oh my, selective ignorance again, though I do dispute your % claim. Please provide reference.

To nail this, (or concede as I really cant be bother calculating how much tax the boomers have paid in their working lives. Perhaps you'd like to, but Id understand if you couldnt be arsed either). This property stripping is merely an additional finance top up that they are stealing from boomers on top of a lifetime of taxation.

But let me say this simplistically for you. Without beer mat maths, boomers have indeed paid the MAJORITY of tax income to the government. The so called 'lost generation' have paid next to nothing towards the countrys finances so far, purely because of their age. If the only gripe is the student loan farce, I agree, student loans are criminal, and no we didnt 'vote' this in, each government from implementing it, decided to continue it. Irrelevant as to which political party you look at.

Blame the tories fine. But then Blame Labour for not doing away with it. We are as disgusted as you are about the whole shebang, and to be frank, you complain re student debt. We complain that our houses are stolen just when we are most vulnerable.

We would all wish for a referendum on student loans, elderley healthcare, etc but will ANY government give us one? NO. We did not vote FOR student loans, nor did we vote for compulsory property orders. No one was ever given a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

You're welcome.

Maybe you missed it as sarcasm

But still anyone born post 1980 is screwed, more or less. But what do you propose, besides shouting at old people.

I dislike the grumbling old bastards as much as the next guy, but lets be honest they've been lied to as much as anyone else. Pensions, paid for by their lifetime contributions, good luck with that.

No i didn't, I agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

but the majority of the national debt private or public is either (a ) pension deficits (publiuc and private) or (b ) MEW. Some of the latter, and certainly wrt BTL, is the under 35s, but most of all of it is definitely the earlier generation's bill, handily passed to the later to pay.

Debt of all kinds has exploded under New Labour, which according to the graph posted up-thread (at least I think it was this thread!) derived more support from younger people.

Pension deficits, agreed. They need to (and will) default IMO, including public sector ones. This will be grossly unfair on those who contributed in good faith -- where their labour created/enabled infrastructure that improve our life today, you could argue that they're subsidising us by having part of their promised pay withheld. IMO we're better off now, getting our entire remuneration up-front, at least we know where we stand. (I never accepted a job where I had to be part of a pension scheme, precisely because I didn't believe they'd be able to meet their obligations).

Anyway, if we accept that they must default surely we can strike that off the anti-boomer list?

Blow-up of the banking system and the debt being passed forward to pay for it: the madness was not restricted to any single generation. Those providing the liar-loan feedstock would have included many young FTBs; MEWers and BTLers might have been older. As far as I'm concerned, pretty much the entire country went temporarily mad.

But my main point is that the bill is still being built up and still being passed forward, so who has the right to be holier than thou?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

I don't know, because it can?

Not sure what's to be grasped

We'll just move to a 2 tiered system, with pseudo private health for those that can pay, and secondary system, paid for by increased taxation. So the best of both worlds, were we get to pay tax for a national healthcare system that is functionally broken, and if you want reasonable healthcare you get to pay again, privately

I don't believe that a cheaper, more basic healthcare system would necessarily be functionally broken. Our was much cheaper not so long ago, and operated quite well -- it used to be one of the best-value systems in the Western world, I believe, when you looked at spending vs key outcomes.

The nettle I was talking about would be taking a hard look at cost-benefits, in terms of spending vs extra life gained, and spending vs quality-of-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

Everyones culpable.

Boomers for their voting on an entitlement culture, be it constant HPI, unsustainable pensions, uncosted medical care, state subsidised borrowing.

Politicians for propagating such a short termist instant gratification view be it with immigration or borrowing or energy.

The MSM/BBC for setting such a morally bankrupt agenda and constantly covering up real inequality

Generation X/Y for being politically uninterested, towing the myopic media line and letting the above get away with it.

I count myself as the last, i really could and should do a lot more to voice my distain for the govt. But the fact is no one my age even wants to talk about politics, they would much rather poke each other all day long on facebook. Ive never been quite at the tin foil hat level, but maybe my generation has been sufficiently pacified by mind control?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

I count myself as the last, i really could and should do a lot more to voice my distain for the govt. But the fact is no one my age even wants to talk about politics, they would much rather poke each other all day long on facebook. Ive never been quite at the tin foil hat level, but maybe my generation has been sufficiently pacified by mind control?!

This is the key - you may scorn the boomers but at least they were a fervently political generation -whether it was rioting in Grosvenor Sq in opposition to the Vietnam War , rioting in Brixton/ Toxtheth in Brixton during the early Eighties or at least been involved somewhere whether it was in the Trade Unions or even in support /opposition of Margaret Thatcher - this current lot love to sneer about `War criminal` Blair ,moan about tution fees , houseproces etc without actually doing anything game changing about it which is something the boomers generation were never shy of .

Edited by Wires 74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

too true - it is frstrating on the one hand to be accused of being the first generation to have credit cards, and then be told to go and take out 100% mortgages

and

Sadmans, "Ive never been quite at the tin foil hat level, but maybe my generation has been sufficiently pacified by mind control?!

Utter utter lack of personal responsibility. No one put a gun to your heads and forced you to take 100% mortages. Those that took them, grabbed them with greedy hands as it saved the b*ll ache of having to put any effort into saving up.

And as to sadmans observation,

Dont be hard on yourself, (or are you really trying to pin youths apathy on the boomers 'mind control'!?) Every generation, with possibly the exception of the political vocal 1960's, the Greenham Commons, the anti-apartheid etc) didnt find an interest in politics until mid-life. It is just a youth thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information