The Lost Generation

[cells]

Lots of Boomers are helping their (relatively) poorer offspring, that's what the Bank of Mum and Dad is. I think it's a terrible idea though, how will the Boomers who MEWed £50k+ to help the young'uns put down a deposit feel if that equity vanishes in HPC and they are stuck paying the mortgage into their 60s?

I think we are talking about different groups.

The boomers I know are very wealthy. Houses paid off, big pensions, good savings. Buying a new car for £20k every 3 years (selling the old one for £7-8k) yet driving at 50mph on the motorway to save on fuel costs, I kid you not!!!

The people have plenty yet they don’t help their kids much at all.

I’m sure once they die they may leave big pots behind but then the “kids” are 60 and don’t need as much help.

Kids need help between 25-35.

Let me give you an example of one I know personally.

59 years old.

He bought his huge house cash just before 2000 valued about £400k today.

Has at least £250k in the bank.

Combined wage with his wife is in the £80-100k pa region.

Final salary for them in the £50k plus region.

Planning to retire at 60.

Has a daughter who just bought a crappy house recently with a big mortgage and a crap paying job. She is approaching her mid 30s and has no kids but want some (presumably no kids largely due to crap wage vs high living costs, can you say high house prices and high rent?)

In his shoes, I would continue working for another 2 years. That would give him some £75k post tax income.

Add another £75k from savings (its not like he needs much savings as their pension will be about £1k a week!).

So that’s £150k. use that money to pay off most the kids mortgage and ask them not to take on debt ever again on the house.

So for an extra 2 years work you have helped your daughter immensely for the rest of her life.

Hell in his shoes I would have done this 10 years ago.

Instead his daughter has spent 10 extra years childless largely due to not having a reasonable income vs cost of living.

Instead said person moans that the cost of the things he buys is high and that life is difficult.

He moans that his daughter is taking on a big mortgage to buy a house and that he would rent until he could buy cash.

Maybe its just the boomers I know but they are a screwy bunch for sure.

Edited February 1, 2010 by cells

[Dorkins]

In defence of the Boomers (I am 27 and they are my parents' generation), I know some who own their own homes outright and without much prompting have told me that house prices are too high and should come down. They are not all BTL wannabes with pound signs in their eyes, if anything that is the generation currently 35-45 who did most of their buying during the bubble. If/when HPC comes back, you might find there is not much of an alliance between the overleveraged few foolish enough to buy or MEW significantly during 2001-2010 and the quiet sensible majority who bought earlier and have no pwoperdee investments.

Look at the stats, 70% of houses are owner-occupied, 1% are second homes, and 10% are privately rented. If you originally bought your house for £50k on a very modest wage, it's a bit much to moan about it falling from £150k to £75k so that another person on a modest wage can do the same. Nobody likes to see the numbers against their name going down, but I imagine a lot of them would see the natural justice in it, especially if it was only theoretical profits they were standing to lose (and maybe never would have realised anyway if they already decided to bequeath the family home to their children). Also the total amount of money MEWed is pretty modest, maybe 5% of post-tax income each year for 6 years i.e. 30% of a year's net wages. Again, the silent majority seem to have MEWed little or not at all and just got on with paying the mortgage.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that you might find the majority of Boomers would protest a lot less about HPC than you might think from naked self interest if it actually got going for real.

[Wires 74]

I'm more than happy with my job - and my income sounds good on paper - but is eroded massively by the Labour government's taxes, stealth or otherwise. Do NOT vote Labour, ever - they promise the world and then leave office every time with a massive budget deficit. If the working class ever raise their standards then they knock them back down. I plan to move to sunnier climes where engineering is appreciated and where I can start a real life - I'm embarrassed to be British, and I'm embarrassed for the boomers who've written in on this thread.

Please shut the door on the way out - and don`t forget to leave your passport ...

[amethyst]

The boomers I know are very wealthy. Houses paid off, big pensions, good savings. Buying a new car for £20k every 3 years (selling the old one for £7-8k) yet driving at 50mph on the motorway to save on fuel costs, I kid you not!!!

Funny, I don't know any 'boomers' like that. But I do know people of that generation who are not well off, yet still help their offspring with money, or have them living at home – a bit like how it is in many other countries, where families tend to live together much more than they do in Britain nowadays.

Perhaps the people you are referring to shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

[guitarman001]

Please shut the door on the way out - and don`t forget to leave your passport ...

Will the real slim shady please shut up...

[mitchbux]

I think we are talking about different groups.

The boomers I know are very wealthy. Houses paid off, big pensions, good savings. Buying a new car for £20k every 3 years (selling the old one for £7-8k) yet driving at 50mph on the motorway to save on fuel costs, I kid you not!!!

The people have plenty yet they dont help their kids much at all.

Im sure once they die they may leave big pots behind but then the kids are 60 and dont need as much help.

Kids need help between 25-35.

Let me give you an example of one I know personally.

59 years old.

He bought his huge house cash just before 2000 valued about £400k today.

Has at least £250k in the bank.

Combined wage with his wife is in the £80-100k pa region.

Final salary for them in the £50k plus region.

Planning to retire at 60.

Has a daughter who just bought a crappy house recently with a big mortgage and a crap paying job. She is approaching her mid 30s and has no kids but want some (presumably no kids largely due to crap wage vs high living costs, can you say high house prices and high rent?)

In his shoes, I would continue working for another 2 years. That would give him some £75k post tax income.

Add another £75k from savings (its not like he needs much savings as their pension will be about £1k a week!).

So thats £150k. use that money to pay off most the kids mortgage and ask them not to take on debt ever again on the house.

So for an extra 2 years work you have helped your daughter immensely for the rest of her life.

Hell in his shoes I would have done this 10 years ago.

Instead his daughter has spent 10 extra years childless largely due to not having a reasonable income vs cost of living.

Instead said person moans that the cost of the things he buys is high and that life is difficult.

He moans that his daughter is taking on a big mortgage to buy a house and that he would rent until he could buy cash.

Maybe its just the boomers I know but they are a screwy bunch for sure.

This pretty much describes the boomers I know (though I accept they are not ALL like this).

I will add to this that they can be heard moaning that they do not have any grandchildren, or that their child is having to go through the stress of IVF to have a family.

The ones that do have grandchildren are heard moaning, that looking after the grandchildren whilst both parents work is impinging on their retirement.

Edited February 1, 2010 by mitchbux

[PopGun]

[/b]

I don’t get this about the British.

I know a lot of boomers who are very wealthy (ie £500k houses, £80k plus wages combined, £50k plus pensions to look forward to and likely a lot of savings) (oh and of course the mandatory yearly holiday and brand new expensive car every 3 years).

All while their children are in relative poverty. Renting shitty flats with poor paying jobs and debt.

This was my scenario, with me and the missus (both shoe horned into University) earning didly squat whilst my parents turned their backs on prudency and mutated into Saga louts. Lavishing themselves on 3 holidays a year, Gucci sunglasses, 4x4s and executive homes. However I knew things are always tough when you're starting out (as it was for them) and tried my best to get on with it.

The only chestnut that got thrown in my direction was "well it will all be yours and your brothers one day".

Only it won't, as surprise surprise it all went Pete Tong. Now we're the ones living in a reasonably priced house and advancing careers, whilst they are approaching 60 and sadly on the scrap heap. Sure many boomers jumped on the bandwagon, but relatively few are still riding on it.

The only thing was that really annoys me about their generation was their misguided 'Dream world For Sale':

"Don't end up like me and your Mum, work hard at school, go to University, keep your head down and graft and you'll be richly rewarded".

Yeah right, thanks for passing on your delusion. I'd of preferred them to be honest with me from the start, and told me that hard work and qualifications mean jack without the greatest commodity of them all - Luck. I had to learn the hard way that a piece of paper is no guarantee of success. At least graduating in 1999, I didn’t have to pay for my fantasy, unlike many graduates today who’ve been miss-sold a life.

I have no issues with most boomers. However some should not bang on about the selfishness and sense of entitlement or expectation of the young, without taking a hard look at themselves in the mirror. The young should also take responsibility, accept we were sold a dud, put it down to experience and get on with it.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

This bit of the article was enough to convince me that it`s the writer and not the boomers who have the sense of entitlement ...

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that he put all his eggs in one basket - trying to get into a career in which supply vastly exceeds demand without having a plan B. I also tried to get into a career in which supply vastly exceeds demand (academia), but operated various plan Bs along the way in case it didn't work: during my postgraduate study and for a couple of years afterwards, I worked as a translator/interpreter for a press agency, a cinema manager/projectionist and an IT support worker, and put time and effort into making sure that I kept those skills up to date. If necessary I could go back into any of those jobs with only a small amount of refresher training, and have deliberately made sure of that in case of a downturn. With 20% cuts in university funding at least around the corner, it may well become necessary (though thankfully, my department is in a stronger position than many).

I'm also not impressed with the fact that he got a 2:2 degree in around 1999/2000 (he says that he's 29). Unless it was from Oxbridge or Durham and/or unless he added some other significant things to his CV during his time at university, this suggests that either he's thick (unlikely, if he actually did write that piece in the Grauniad) or bone idle. I started full-time university teaching in 2001, in a former poly: at that time a typical profile of marks for a cohort of 100 would be ten firsts, 50 2:1s, 30 2:2s and ten thirds. I can't recall anyone I taught ever actually failing. At that time, the proportion in traditional universities was around two or three firsts, 30 2:1s, 50 2:2s, 10-15 thirds and three or four fails. I now teach in a traditional university where a typical output is 5% first, 60% 2:1, 33-35% 2:2 and one or two thirds or fails.

But no, in that in one respect his complaint was legitimate: someone with reasonable intelligence and an average but not highly motivated worker would have had much rosier prospects starting his career in the boomer generation than in his. A friend's husband, now in his early 60s, spent most of his 20s faffing around in a series of jobs he didn't like after getting a third from a redbrick in the late 1960s. He trained as a teacher in his late 20s, then spent around two decades as a chalk face classroom teacher in a Yorkshire grammar school. In the mid-90s, a new headmaster came along who took an instant dislike to him. Following negotiations involving the union, he retired in his early 50s in the mid-1990s on a full pension, the cause ostensibly being 'stress' (!), and has been living the life of riley ever since, pursuing his hobby of furniture restoration. The couple own two large houses (a four-bed and a six-bed) in Ripon, the smaller of which they rent out, two nice cars and go on several holidays a year; more or less all out of his pension and the rental income on the place he bought outright during a working career that can't have lasted much longer than two decades.

If he'd been born in the late '40s, our whining friend in the Guardian probably would have had a similar life to look forward to. Not now.

Edited February 1, 2010 by The Ayatollah Buggeri

[The Realist]

The article linked in the original post suggests that currently there are not enough suitable jobs for graduates.

This morning the news is saying that there is going to be a problem because fewer people will be able to go to university/college this year. If there are not enough suitable jobs for graduates why is a reduction in the number of graduates in the future a problem?

Probably one of the things that made life better for the baby boomers who graduated in the past was that there was a better balance between the number of graduates and the available suitable jobs. I think that this is still true even if you take into account that many jobs now regarded as suitable for/by graduates would not have been regarded as suitable for/by baby boomers graduates.

[cells]

This was my scenario, with me and the missus (both shoe horned into University) earning didly squat whilst my parents turned their backs on prudency and mutated into Saga louts. Lavishing themselves on 3 holidays a year, Gucci sunglasses, 4x4s and executive homes. However I knew things are always tough when you're starting out (as it was for them) and tried my best to get on with it.

The only chestnut that got thrown in my direction was "well it will all be yours and your brothers one day".

Only it won't, as surprise surprise it all went Pete Tong. Now we're the ones living in a reasonably priced house and advancing careers, whilst they are approaching 60 and sadly on the scrap heap. Sure many boomers jumped on the bandwagon, but relatively few are still riding on it.

The only thing was that really annoys me about their generation was their misguided 'Dream world For Sale':

"Don't end up like me and your Mum, work hard at school, go to University, keep your head down and graft and you'll be richly rewarded".

Yeah right, thanks for passing on your delusion. I'd of preferred them to be honest with me from the start, and told me that hard work and qualifications mean jack without the greatest commodity of them all - Luck. I had to learn the hard way that a piece of paper is no guarantee of success. At least graduating in 1999, I didn’t have to pay for my fantasy, unlike many graduates today who’ve been miss-sold a life.

I have no issues with most boomers. However some should not bang on about the selfishness and sense of entitlement or expectation of the young, without taking a hard look at themselves in the mirror. The young should also take responsibility, accept we were sold a dud, put it down to experience and get on with it.

Of course not all boomers are like I describe but a large portion are.

Very little help could be life changing for their kids (ie in the example I gave the boomers working 2 more years would mean their daughter was mortgage free instead of a big debt on her back).

[JonoP]

I think a lot of the angrier posts here are from people in their early/mid twenties. At that age, the amount you earn versus the cost of housing etc is at its worst.

I am in my mid thirties. I left school at 17 with 7 GCSE’s right in the midst of the early 90s recession. Work was very hard to come by, I did lots and lots of menial, very short term jobs and spent a fair amount of time on income support. In 1993 I scrapped together a few hundred quid and went to Israel and worked on a Kibbutz. I spent a year out in Israel. When I came back, I was in my early twenties. I worked for Granada TV rentals, in a call centre, chasing debtors. The pay was £3 per hour, or £120 a week before tax. That had to pay for my rent, council tax, food etc. Life seemed financially bleak.

However, over the next ten or fifteen years, I changed jobs a couple of times and got promoted several times. I now work for a large US tech company and earn a very decent salary. I could, should I desire, afford a large house but I have taken the decision to save and buy without a mortgage. I will be able to do that before I am forty. I put twenty percent of my salary in to my pension each month so I am building up a good pot.

My point here is not to brag. Rather, it is to illustrate the fact that you only typically start earning reasonable money in your late twenties/early thirties. Your thirties and forties are your ‘prime earning years’.

When I was in my early twenties, my financial situation seemed hopeless. It does however improve. Do not give up.

And as to the boomers. Hmmm. They do like high house prices. The one thing I cannot get my folks to understand is that we are worse off (in terms of percentage spend that needs to go on servicing housing costs and pensions) than they were. Occasionally we have quite an amusing conversation. They say words to the effect that I get paid too much. I respond by saying that I could not afford to pay for the house they live in and the payments that would be required to match my Dads final salary pension.

The boomer love of high house prices will eventually come to bite them in the tail though. There will not be anyone younger than them who can afford to pay the prices they are asking. Prices will have to drop. It is as simple as that.

[Wires 74]

The only chestnut that got thrown in my direction was "well it will all be yours and your brothers one day".

Only it won't, as surprise surprise it all went Pete Tong. Now we're the ones living in a reasonably priced house

Even that doesn`t always work though - my mate always grafted and because he seems to be doing alright he has just found out that his parents have left their stash to his sisters brats -sorry children ( or our adorable grandchildren as his mum and dad put it to him ) ...

[DeepLurker]

Lots of Boomers are helping their (relatively) poorer offspring, that's what the Bank of Mum and Dad is. I think it's a terrible idea though, how will the Boomers who MEWed £50k+ to help the young'uns put down a deposit feel if that equity vanishes in HPC and they are stuck paying the mortgage into their 60s?

I think that the BoMaD is terrible for more than just financial reasons.

One of the defining moments in growing up is becoming financially independent from your parents. From that point on, the relationship changes from parent/child, or master/disciple, towards a new more equal relationship between 2 adults.

Up to that point, parents have a pretty much total control over their offspring's activity - "do this or we'll cut the money off".

Now the BoMaD is bringing children back into the fold - right back to the master/disciple relationship. Forget any talk of "just a business relationship", it's a load of bull. It's the parents exerting control once again over their children's lives *

This can only end in tears - it's a sinister, corrupting force that is changing a generation back into dependent children. Or maybe even preventing them from "flying the nest" at all - I'm not a 20-something, but I'm trying to get into their minds - even when you leave home, you know that the most important purchase in your life is entirely dependent on the goodwill of your parents. You've no chance of growing up!

* financial backing from parents always comes with strings attached - one reason why my OH and me went for a sub-£1000 wedding (we were skint) rather than accept the money that our parents were desperately waving at us

EDIT: typo

Edited February 1, 2010 by DeepLurker

[ken_ichikawa]

My point here is not to brag. Rather, it is to illustrate the fact that you only typically start earning reasonable money in your late twenties/early thirties. Your thirties and forties are your ‘prime earning years’.

When I was in my early twenties, my financial situation seemed hopeless. It does however improve. Do not give up.

I disagree, in my peer group of as time goes on as people receive more qualifications their pay seems to drop. Both nominally and purchasing power wise. Also your £3 an hour anology is wrong, I used to get paid £2.15 at Mc'ds in the 1990s , £5.80 nominally is more than £2.15 but £2.15 had higher purchasing power than it did now. As said exactly one year and 10 days ago I was earning £19K, 2 weeks ago I was earning min wage.

You also did not face the massive prospect of outsourcing, in that 10-20 years ago you had a chance at working your way up, automation and outsourcing have cut the legs off the bottom of the industry, wheras in 2005 my advanced CGT knowledge was needed by 2007 it was integrated into the software and this skill was no longer needed. Indian blokes who do the job for £1 an hour can also ALWAYS out compete you.

Hence the future IS bleak.

In that directors 10-20 years ago thought shall we promote Jenkins as he has done rather well this year and we ought to reward him for billing so much...

2010 has changed to

Shall we outsource this job or do it in house? it costs us £1 to send it to India or £50 to do it in house.... guess who gets the P45.

Everywhich way you turn it gets gunned down, by new tech or outsourcing, there is nothing left bar the NMW jobs which have no progression and can lead to nothing higher, hence people are demoralised.

Then if you DO make bigger money in your 30s and 40s you get raped by taxes the need to pay for your own pension AND others pensions and your student debt AND a million and so other things.

[indirectapproach]

That tale of everyday life in accountancy is pretty similar to what happened to high street legal practices.

It wasn't so much outsourcing or technology but in a nutshell the money went somewhere else.

Where? I'm not sure.

Was that a good thing?

In some way yes.

But whereas the boomers had reasonably well paid, reasonably civilised options open to them in the professions, so many of the options in this area for the generation that comes after the boomers are not well paid and far from civilised.

Edited February 1, 2010 by indirectapproach

[mitchbux]

I think that the BoMaD is terrible for more than just financial reasons.

One of the defining moments in growing up is becoming financially independent from your parents. From that point on, the relationship changes from parent/child, or master/disciple, towards a new more equal relationship between 2 adults.

Up to that point, parents have a pretty much total control over their offspring's activity - "do this or we'll cut the money off".

Now the BoMaD is bringing children back into the fold - right back to the master/disciple relationship. Forget any talk of "just a business relationship", it's a load of bull. It's the parents exerting control once again over their children's lives *

This can only end in tears - it's a sinister, corrupting force that is changing a generation back into dependent children. Or maybe even preventing them from "flying the nest" at all - I'm not a 20-something, but I'm trying to get into their minds - even when you leave home, you know that the most important purchase in your life is entirely dependent on the goodwill of your parents. You've no chance of growing up!

* financial backing from parents always comes with strings attached - one reason why my OH and me went for a sub-£1000 wedding (we were skint) rather than accept the money that our parents were desperately waving at us

EDIT: typo

Spot on!

[indirectapproach]

"One of the defining moments in growing up is becoming financially independent from your parents."

I think that is a very good point.

For a year or so after university I was drifting and getting nowhere.

I approached my old man for a job, something that he was perfectly capable of giving me.

He told me to fark off and find my own job and that was one of the best things he ever did for me.

Fifteen years later, when he was on the brink of retiring he approached me to see if I might like to tale over his company.

We discussed it and agreed that my prospects were better and I would have more fun if I stuck to what I was already doing.

So what is my point?

Financial independence is so very important and so very difficult to achieve when you start your working life with a £20,000 student debt, plus overdraft if you've had any fun.

[amethyst]

The 'boomers' I do know who are quite affluent have usually inherited from their parents or a sibling who has died, rather than speculating on property. Their offspring will equally inherit from them in turn. But as previously stated, there are many 'boomers' who are badly off, despite having worked hard all their lives. They are the ones who have not speculated on property, or had massive salaries in the commercial world (despite having 'good' jobs, e.g. in the academic area).

I do also think that as another poster pointed out, people who are whining about their parents' generation on this forum seem to be mostly in their twenties, and have not realized that hard graft is needed to get anywhere in life, in whatever field (luck does not have much to do with it – you make your own luck). They have been sheltered from the realities of life because life has been relatively easy for them, having been brought up by affluent parents (many of whom did not have it so good when they were young).

I also find it curious that these complainers whinge about the 'boomers', whereas in fact massive property speculation has been carried out by the generation after them, now in its late thirties and forties. These people are largely responsible for the massive rises in property, fueled by the profligate greed that is prevalent in British society today.

[Si1]

The 'boomers' I do know who are quite affluent have usually inherited from their parents or a sibling who has died, rather than speculating on property. Their offspring will equally inherit from them in turn.

except it will be wiped out by inflation

I do also think that as another poster pointed out, people who are whining about their parents' generation on this forum seem to be mostly in their twenties, and have not realized that hard graft is needed to get anywhere in life, in whatever field (luck does not have much to do with it – you make your own luck).

presumbaly previous generations 'made their own luck' by not having student debt. well said.

I also find it curious that these complainers whinge about the 'boomers', whereas in fact massive property speculation has been carried out by the generation after them, now in its late thirties and forties.

durr - the UK baby boom includes people from mid-60s to mid-40s, 2 cohorts in fact

who precisely are you talking about?

[huw]

Hmmmm .....

"Methinks the boomers protesteth too much."

Debate <> protest <> whining

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

"They said if I worked hard at music then I could be a rock star. What happened?"

[Dorkins]

I also find it curious that these complainers whinge about the 'boomers', whereas in fact massive property speculation has been carried out by the generation after them, now in its late thirties and forties.

I am inclined to agree with this, people who are now 35-49 were in their 20s and early 30s when HPI first started in the mid 90s and were mostly too young to experience the last complete property cycle firsthand (though of course they read about it in the papers). Also much of the real fall after the initial crash in 90-91 was hidden by inflation. For almost their entire adult lives house prices have gone up 10-20% a year, so why wouldn't they think this was normal and behave accordingly? It's not as though the MSM or the government ever tried to tell them otherwise.

In fact, I wonder if the length of the average property cycle isn't pretty well dictated by how long it takes for a new generation of punters to grow up and buy into the 10% HPI fantasy.

But recent research, published by the Association of Residential Letting Agents, revealed how amateur investors are flooding the market.

A typical buy-to-let investor is between the age of 36 and 55, lives in the South and owns 4.4 properties.

link

Edited February 1, 2010 by Dorkins

[Si1]

I am inclined to agree with this, people who are now 35-49 were in their 20s and early 30s when HPI first started in the mid 90s and were mostly too young to experience the last complete property cycle firsthand (though of course they read about it in the papers). For almost their entire adult lives house prices have gone up 10-20% a year, so why wouldn't they think this was normal and behave accordingly? It's not as though the MSM or the government ever tried to tell them otherwise.

link

double doh! that article was from 2007 citing 36 to 55 so implies the current equivalent ages are 39 to 58 - can you work out how I worked that out?

And the 2nd cohort of boomers were born during the 1960s - so currently between 40 and 50

Can you see the connection? genius....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom#In_the_United_Kingdom

The United Kingdom experienced a second baby boom during the 1960s, with a peak in births in 1965 .... The two peaks can clearly be seen in the UK population pyramids.[15]

[huw]

I am willing to do almost ANYTHING and times are tough, I'm an ex accountancy qualified with experience and there are no jobs out there, and so what did I do?, I washed dishes. A huge number HPers mocked and belittled me for being a loser.

They are the losers if they mocked you for showing some grit. But there are many different kinds on HPC, plenty would have admired you (but usually it's the mockers and haters who are more motivated to communicate their feelings, so you probably didn't get a true representation of peoples' responses. FWIW I admire anyone who does what it takes to get through, similarly in the OP article I admired the father's work-ethic -- though I have doubts about the parenting job he did).

But I took it on the chin and continued to do it. (this business folded 2 weeks ago as business rates were doubled they decided to close up)

Sorry to hear that, I hope something better comes out of it.

[Dorkins]

the UK baby boom includes people from mid-60s to mid-40s, 2 cohorts in fact

who precisely are you talking about?

As I understand it:

born 1940-1960 = Boomer

born 1960-1980 = Generation X

born 1980-2000 = Generation Y

more or less.

HPC is much more a GenX problem than a Boomer problem as GenX bought most of its houses at inflated prices, either new build or probates formerly belonging to those born in the 1920s and 1930s. If prices fall again most Boomers will just shrug their shoulders at the property wealth that never materialised, but GenX families stand to lose six figures of equity that they have actually paid for out of wages.