Is Generation X About To Get Lucky

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7981150/Primary-schools-short-of-350000-places.html

The recent demographics in the UK show an increased birth rate, which is mainly down to migrants. This, as the above article highlights means more school places are needed, and so presumably in 20 years time there will be lots of new young fresh faced workers to exploit and pay big fat pensions for the oldies again as the boomers start dying off.

It is quite possible that this will boost the economy driving up stock prices and house prices, probably as Generation X is about to retire? As a Gen Xer, I'll ask myself if we may soon be the hated ones.  

This won't have been because of fat and relatively undeserved final salary pensions,  but  Gen X did have the advantage of knowing that that final salary was unsustainable and  in witnessing rubbish investment returns  many have been forced to save heavily and accumulate real wealth bit by bit, rather than through asset inflation. Many now have largish pension pots and most have now bought houses, with those who bought early having made some HPI gains as well. So presumably many in Gen X will do well if we get a surge in stock prices.

[ken_ichikawa]

Well the problem is you have to survive those 20 years to be in a positon to benefit.

With increasing outsourcing and automation even of high level jobs, as well as the way corporates tend to make older expensive staff redundant and replace them with interns or cheaper younger staff.

Who says most of generation x will survive to benefit rather than say be living in a tent in the woods nearby big towns, kinda like Korea and Japan where they have massive shanty towns.

[porca misèria]

It's simpler than that. If you're in a bulge, you're facing more competition for a slice of the pie throughout your life. If you're from a smaller generation, there's more per person to go round. Latest example: problems providing sufficient school places for today's boom. They'll have to compete for everything through their lives, too.

Of course there are also secondary effects: social policy, time lags (the first in a boom will prosper, as in, the 1945-born are getting their pensions at 65 but the 1960-born get to wait to 72 or thereabouts), perverse incentives (leading to crap like the HPI bubble), and shorter-term boom&bust. But today's lifetime-most-fortunate are the 1970s-born, in the window between 'boomer' overload and today's priced-out.

Edited September 4, 2010 by porca misèria

[(Blizzard)]

It's simpler than that. If you're in a bulge, you're facing more competition for a slice of the pie throughout your life. If you're from a smaller generation, there's more per person to go round. Latest example: problems providing sufficient school places for today's boom. They'll have to compete for everything through their lives, too.

Of course there are also secondary effects: social policy, time lags (the first in a boom will prosper, as in, the 1945-born are getting their pensions at 65 but the 1960-born get to wait to 72 or thereabouts), perverse incentives (leading to crap like the HPI bubble), and shorter-term boom&bust. But today's lifetime-most-fortunate are the 1970s-born, in the window between 'boomer' overload and today's priced-out.

I have parents, and I hope to have children. Their welfare affects me, and their costs are, in some sense, mine.

A few of the greedy 'me' generation are starting to learn this, I think, as they see their children unemployed, unable to afford houses, unable to afford children of their own.

You can't think of 'generations' as being isolated, independent, entities. This is the same mistake made by feminists, who like to pretend that women and men somehow don't really interact.

[(Blizzard)]

Do you care to rephrase that ?

Some might think you a bitter loser, than a person with some wisdom to impart

They are despised. Whether they deserve to be or not, doesn't really change that.

[MrPin]

Some times are luckier than others!

[Fairies Wear Boots]

About to get lucky? Depends how many BTLs you 'snap up' at 'the bottom'! (with inflation running riot).

[Mal Volio]

They are despised.

It's posts like this that are the clearest indicator of the danger of the self-reinforcement provided by this site.

[stormymonday_2011]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7981150/Primary-schools-short-of-350000-places.html

The recent demographics in the UK show an increased birth rate, which is mainly down to migrants. This, as the above article highlights means more school places are needed, and so presumably in 20 years time there will be lots of new young fresh faced workers to exploit and pay big fat pensions for the oldies again as the boomers start dying off.

It is quite possible that this will boost the economy driving up stock prices and house prices, probably as Generation X is about to retire? As a Gen Xer, I'll ask myself if we may soon be the hated ones.

This won't have been because of fat and relatively undeserved final salary pensions, but Gen X did have the advantage of knowing that that final salary was unsustainable and in witnessing rubbish investment returns many have been forced to save heavily and accumulate real wealth bit by bit, rather than through asset inflation. Many now have largish pension pots and most have now bought houses, with those who bought early having made some HPI gains as well. So presumably many in Gen X will do well if we get a surge in stock prices.

No Generation X will never get to Yasgur's Farm.

They are doomed for all eternity to be associated with Haircut 100 and other gay boy bands.

BTW Generations cost at both ends of the age spectrum.

You will have to pay for all new kids education etc which of course will run until they are at least 18 and probably longer.

Edited September 4, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[fellow]

Generation X?

[Darxide]

Generation X?

Indeed. What exactly qualifies as a Generation X'er?

[smiffy1967]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7981150/Primary-schools-short-of-350000-places.html

The recent demographics in the UK show an increased birth rate, which is mainly down to migrants. This, as the above article highlights means more school places are needed, and so presumably in 20 years time there will be lots of new young fresh faced workers to exploit and pay big fat pensions for the oldies again as the boomers start dying off.

It is quite possible that this will boost the economy driving up stock prices and house prices, probably as Generation X is about to retire? As a Gen Xer, I'll ask myself if we may soon be the hated ones.  

This won't have been because of fat and relatively undeserved final salary pensions,  but  Gen X did have the advantage of knowing that that final salary was unsustainable and  in witnessing rubbish investment returns  many have been forced to save heavily and accumulate real wealth bit by bit, rather than through asset inflation. Many now have largish pension pots and most have now bought houses, with those who bought early having made some HPI gains as well. So presumably many in Gen X will do well if we get a surge in stock prices.

Not a chance

have you not bothered to read any of the peak oil threads?

BAU has ended or is about to end

[Ah-so]

Indeed. What exactly qualifies as a Generation X'er?

Generally someone's whose youth was in the 80s and 90s, so probably now aged roughly 30 to 45, give or take a few years.

Anyway, generation X. is very divided on the property ladder. Some made it on just in time, and accumulated vast paper wealth, while others "missed the boat" and are having the same difficulty getting on the ladder as the generation Ys.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Ah-so

[winkie]

What I would like to know is where will all these jobs come from that will pay a future living wage now we are having a mini boom in population growth....all these extra people apart from requiring a school to go to will require a home to live in........short term profitable gain will create for a long term sustainable problem?

[Tired of Waiting]

Do you care to rephrase that ?

Some might think you a bitter loser, than a person with some wisdom to impart

I despise NIMBYs. Problem is, most boomers are NIMBYs, and most NIMBYs are boomers.

[aa3]

I have parents, and I hope to have children. Their welfare affects me, and their costs are, in some sense, mine.

A few of the greedy 'me' generation are starting to learn this, I think, as they see their children unemployed, unable to afford houses, unable to afford children of their own.

You can't think of 'generations' as being isolated, independent, entities. This is the same mistake made by feminists, who like to pretend that women and men somehow don't really interact.

This is very true.. I view it as a continuim too. Another is our culture and how it should relate to the past, present and future.

I've seen quite a few boomers who have worked so hard and gotten so much money, bought hte biggest dream house.. yet their own children are just subsisting.. locked out of housing, locked out of good jobs, competing against their own parents for the cost of living against everything - except their parents and grandparents have far, far more income. And even though those boomers have all they could ever want materially.. they still feel empty because they don't have grandchildren. Their own children never really able to establish themselves.

I think for years people blamed their own children for the failure on an individual level. But I was surprised to hear an older lady say it is a societal problem. She happened to be hoping for great grandchildren. But her grandchildren were struggling.

In 100 years looking back no one is going to care less who lived in a £300,000 home and who lived in a £600,000 home in the year 2010. What they will care about is who their ancestors were and the type of community they built for all.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

It's simpler than that.  If you're in a bulge, you're facing more competition for a slice of the pie throughout your life.  If you're from a smaller generation, there's more per person to go round.  Latest example: problems providing sufficient school places for today's boom.  They'll have to compete for everything through their lives, too.

Of course there are also secondary effects: social policy, time lags (the first in a boom will prosper, as in, the 1945-born are getting their pensions at 65 but the 1960-born get to wait to 72 or thereabouts), perverse incentives (leading to crap like the HPI bubble), and shorter-term boom&bust.  But today's lifetime-most-fortunate are the 1970s-born, in the window between 'boomer' overload and today's priced-out.

porca misèria, that is exactly what I was alluding to.

Right now I am pretty much bang in the middle of the Gen X demographic, and from my experience I have seen those just below me in age really struggle with housing, those just a bit older generally fairing much better oin the whole. Those in rough age bracket, seem to have more mixed outcomes, with things boiling down to whether or not you had a good job and could afford to buy by the year 2000.

The interesting thing now is that in job terms I am seeing the over 50s vanish (either forced out or retiring early) and firms seem to be struggling to get skilled people in their preferred age range, which is roughly 25-45. This is illegal of course, but it doesn't seem to stop them.

What I can see happening now is a massive bout of inflation, this will transfer into wage and price rises, just at the point the boomers have locked in their pensions, either as cash funds waiting to buy an annuity or as an actual annuity.

To make the system work and it is a system. The boomers will have to be impoverished relative to the working population.  If there is one person retired for every three workers, then that retired person on say 2/3 final salary would be taking up 20% of the working people's income just to pay their pension if it were on a generous final salary basis (this gets worse with deflation) - and that is before the tax to cover the services an apparatus of the state.

The only viable solutions are inflation or war. Inflation will maintain the social order and so will be the choice of preference.

[johnycoldears]

No Generation X will never get to Yasgur's Farm.

They are doomed for all eternity to be associated with Haircut 100 and other gay boy bands.

BTW Generations cost at both ends of the age spectrum.

You will have to pay for all new kids education etc which of course will run until they are at least 18 and probably longer.

Haircut 100 ?

How about the specials, The Jam, U2 - in fact anything from (arguably) punk to new wave to ska to mod revival to new romantic to early rap (Grand Master Flash) to (unfortunately) Scott Aitken and Waterman. The late seventies and early eighties produced more variety of music than anything before or since (obviously apologies for the S,A &W).

I was born in '64, classic generation X and this was the soundtrack to my late tees, early twenties.

Oh yeah, and boy bands ,they're the fault of the next generation - whatever that's called !

[Darxide]

Generally someone's whose youth was in the 80s and 90s, so probably now aged roughly 30 to 45, give or take a few years.

Anyway, generation X. is very divided on the property ladder. Some made it on just in time, and accumulated vast paper wealth, while others "missed the boat" and are having the same difficulty getting on the ladder as the generation Ys.

Ah I see. Well being born in the late 70's, I suppose I just about qualifiy as a Gen X'er (90's youth).

And yes, I suppose I did miss the boat. I've hit my 30's now, and unless something drastic happens, I can't honestly see myself ever owning.

I'm not bitter about it, unlike many of 'my' generation, I'm perfectly happy renting, as I'm not prepared to give up my standard of living.

i.e. to pay £1000 p/m to a bank rather than £500 to a LL.

[porca misèria]

I was born in '64, classic generation X and this was the soundtrack to my late tees, early twenties.

Haven't you read His Eminence, the Sage of Boom, Willetts?

You are a boomer. More than that, a top boomer: 1964 is one of two peak years (the other being 1947).

No, I don't believe it either. But now the 'boomer' agenda has been both set forth and grabbed, those of us born in the first half of the sixties are going to be on the wrong end not only of boomer demographics (vanishing pensions), but also of anti-boomer reaction from our juniors.

[johnycoldears]

Haven't you read His Eminence, the Sage of Boom, Willetts?

You are a boomer. More than that, a top boomer: 1964 is one of two peak years (the other being 1947).

No, I don't believe it either. But now the 'boomer' agenda has been both set forth and grabbed, those of us born in the first half of the sixties are going to be on the wrong end not only of boomer demographics (vanishing pensions), but also of anti-boomer reaction from our juniors.

According to wikipedia generation x runs from birth dates about 1961. Generation y is for those born from mid to late 70's. Hence why boy band such as " take that " just aren't my generation's fault

I've got to agree about the perception though. Most of us do have the advantage of owning our own (reasonably mortgaged) house, but our pensions are screwed and our retirement age is ever advancing.

Edited September 4, 2010 by johnycoldears

[winkie]

It all boils down to....do you want to make yourself rich or your dependents rich?.....imo we all have to make our own way in life and do the best with any opportunities put in front of us...putting easy cash opportunities on a plate doesn't encourage wise and skillful use...free money is easily wasted.

[OnlyMe]

This is very true.. I view it as a continuim too. Another is our culture and how it should relate to the past, present and future.

I've seen quite a few boomers who have worked so hard and gotten so much money, bought hte biggest dream house.. yet their own children are just subsisting.. locked out of housing, locked out of good jobs, competing against their own parents for the cost of living against everything - except their parents and grandparents have far, far more income. And even though those boomers have all they could ever want materially.. they still feel empty because they don't have grandchildren. Their own children never really able to establish themselves.

I think for years people blamed their own children for the failure on an individual level. But I was surprised to hear an older lady say it is a societal problem. She happened to be hoping for great grandchildren. But her grandchildren were struggling.

In 100 years looking back no one is going to care less who lived in a £300,000 home and who lived in a £600,000 home in the year 2010. What they will care about is who their ancestors were and the type of community they built for all.

Except for many they won't be around - there will be no ancestors - it really is that serious.

Many boomers are going to live a long and very lonely old age. Children dispersed to the cheapest parts of the country living in scummy cramped conditions, paying though the nose for it and trips to visit the parents (costing a good deal of money that needs to be saved) will be well down the list.

[@contradevian]

They are despised. Whether they deserve to be or not, doesn't really change that.

Only on here they are. I've yet to see any wider animosity towards boomers. Well not exactly seeing riots and protests against them. On the other hand I think the older generation is very concerned about what their children are going to do for sustainable well paid jobs, as every is casual and temporary. Indeed I know people of my generation and family are only continuing to work, in order to give their offspring some extra money.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Sir John Steed

[Si1]

According to wikipedia generation x runs from birth dates about 1961. Generation y is for those born from mid to late 70's.

that is for USA definitions, so inappropriate here