pl1 Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I was fortunate enough to catch this 10 minute peice on BBC News just after 9.00am this morning. I never thought I'd see a report like this from the BBC, it could have been written by any one of us over here on HPC. I can't find it on the BBC website just yet, but the jist of it was that the baby boomers have coined it in over the past 40 years with average house prices going from £2,000 to £162,000. A rise of 273% when calculated in real terms. Basically, said that house prices should be around £40,000. Had some old chap who's trying to downsize by flogging his 3 bedroomed house but it has been on the market for over a year with no buyers. Annoyingly, not once did the reporter put it to him that the price he's trying to get might be a bit too high. That really annoyed me. Then they wheeled on Henry Pryor (housing expert) to discuss house prices and baby boomers further. I think you have to understand the old guard at the BBC (and other places too) are retiring and our generation are now taking up the levers of power. I think we will see a lot more stories like this in the msm in the comming years. Also, following on from this, as I have said several times in the past, I'm fully convinced now that the BBC and other msm/newspaper reporters actively lurk on forums like HPC for news worthy stories as we have been banging on about this baby boom apartheid for a good few years now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricksy Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 The miserable truth is a lot of older people won't be aren't as rich as they think they are, and a lot of younger people won't get as rich as they imagine expect! Bullseye Mr. Pin! I've proposed two small changes for your consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Bruno Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I'm a boomer and I never wanted high house prices. I've never bought, as it happens, but I would like to do some day paying by cash when prices are sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 (edited) Bullseye Mr. Pin! I've proposed two small changes for your consideration. I think we are thinking much the same! However I do wonder whether the "moaning young", and I can see the reasons for it, have anything to inherit off their "boomer" relatives! surely the very people they are moaning about may save their arses someday! Edited January 1, 2011 by MrPin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orsino Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Of course nobody complained, did I hear later generations complain that their electronic toys and trips to Ibiza were getting cheaper? Who needs affordable housing and a sustainable economy when we have cheap iPods and Ryanair, eh? I suppose Boomers will be wanting their pensions in index-linked cash though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industry Insider Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I was fortunate enough to catch this 10 minute peice on BBC News just after 9.00am this morning. I never thought I'd see a report like this from the BBC, it could have been written by any one of us over here on HPC. I can't find it on the BBC website just yet, but the jist of it was that the baby boomers have coined it in over the past 40 years with average house prices going from £2,000 to £162,000. A rise of 273% when calculated in real terms. Basically, said that house prices should be around £40,000. Had some old chap who's trying to downsize by flogging his 3 bedroomed house but it has been on the market for over a year with no buyers. Annoyingly, not once did the reporter put it to him that the price he's trying to get might be a bit too high. That really annoyed me. Then they wheeled on Henry Pryor (housing expert) to discuss house prices and baby boomers further. Is this the link to BBC Breakfast you are () Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I think we are thinking much the same! However I do wonder whether the "moaning young", and I can see the reasons for it, have anything to inherit off their "boomer" relatives! surely the very people they are moaning about may save their arses someday! They'll just be giving some of the money back, too late to be of real use. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Who needs affordable housing and a sustainable economy when we have cheap iPods and Ryanair, eh? I suppose Boomers will be wanting their pensions in index-linked cash though. That would be nice, thanks. On a serious note, however, if there really has been a transfer of wealth from young to old, why does it appear in the statistics, but in fact, what does appear is that the wealth has not been transferred between generations, but from the poor to those already wealthy? The US spent $23 trillion bailing out banks, financial institutions and foreign investors but not $1 could find its way to help the people. In the UK, billions were spent helping banks and investors, but not 1 pound could find its way to a family. This is a massive shift of wealth away from the people to the wealthy elite, at the expense of the people. Construction of the Credit Crisis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 On a serious note, however, if there really has been a transfer of wealth from young to old, why does it appear in the statistics, but in fact, what does appear is that the wealth has not been transferred between generations, but from the poor to those already wealthy? If you've got a property you are wealthy compared to those without. The young are the poor, the older are the wealthy. It is going from the poor/young to the wealthy/older. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Is this the link to BBC Breakfast you are looking for? Well found. Here's the Rightmove link for the house he can't sell. "Been on the market for a good year." http://www.rightmove...y-31234568.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 If you've got a property you are wealthy compared to those without. The young are the poor, the older are the wealthy. It is going from the poor/young to the wealthy/older. Being young and propertyless is an ageless condition. Being older and wealthier is (usually) the result of earning a lifetime's wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 (edited) Being young and propertyless is an ageless condition. Being older and wealthier is (usually) the result of earning a lifetime's wages. I've never heard of anyone getting wealthy via a wage slip alone. There's no way a priced out younger person who has to give upwards of a third of their take home to a member of the previous generation for a temporary roof will find employment to be a way to wealth. There is obvious transfer of wealth from young to old, from poor to relatively wealthy. I thought this was a given, particularly on this site. Edited January 1, 2011 by cybernoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I've never heard of anyone getting wealthy via a wage slip alone. There's no way a priced out younger person who has to give upwards of a third of their take home to a member of the previous generation for a temporary roof will find employment to be a way to wealth. There is obvious transfer of wealth from young to old, from poor to relatively wealthy. I thought this was a given, particularly on this site. A third? Are you kidding? In my peer group it is more like 40-55% of their take home pay. And all of us share or live in nasty bedsits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orsino Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Being young and propertyless is an ageless condition. Being older and wealthier is (usually) the result of earning a lifetime's wages. The current average age of an unassisted first time buyer is 36. According to the Resolution Foundation it would currently take the average earner (note: not a young earner) 14 years to save for a first-time deposit. According to the Office of National Statistics, unemployment among the 16-24 age group currently stands at 17.6% compared to 7.9% for the population as a whole. A recent National Centre for Social Research study found 55% of those aged 18-29 said they had experienced unfair treatment or prejudice because of their age, compared to 20% in their 60s. University guide Push estimate that students starting university this year can expect to graduate with average debts of £25,000 (that's before the announced rise in tuition fees kick in)...... but hey, iPods are cheap, so it's not all bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) The young aren't losing financially. It is TIME they are losing. This is priceless. Time spent living with your parents or in houseshares until you are in your late 30s could have been spent raising a family in your own home. 17 years it will take to save for a house deposit according to Halifax. At some point, One must ask oneself, if it will be easier or quicker to wait for house to be inherited. Cruel, wicked thinking, yes, but the harsh reality. Not accurate, I just made it up, to illustrate. Edited January 2, 2011 by Money Spinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The young aren't losing financially. It is TIME they are losing. This is priceless. Time spent living with your parents or in houseshares until you are in your late 30s could have been spent raising a family in your own home. 17 years it will take to save for a house deposit according to Halifax. At some point, One must ask oneself, if it will be easier or quicker to wait for house to be inherited. Cruel, wicked thinking, yes, but the harsh reality. Not accurate, I just made it up, to illustrate. Are you suggesting patricide and matricide as appropriate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Are you suggesting patricide and matricide as appropriate? I suppose for some, it is. Especially in a little known town of Midsommer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentholist Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The young aren't losing financially. It is TIME they are losing. This is priceless. Time spent living with your parents or in houseshares until you are in your late 30s could have been spent raising a family in your own home. 17 years it will take to save for a house deposit according to Halifax. At some point, One must ask oneself, if it will be easier or quicker to wait for house to be inherited. Cruel, wicked thinking, yes, but the harsh reality. Not accurate, I just made it up, to illustrate. The banks and the boomers are way ahead of you. Lifetime mortgages etc will enable boomers to extract all "equity" before death. Inheritance will be a thing of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The banks and the boomers are way ahead of you. Lifetime mortgages etc will enable boomers to extract all "equity" before death. Inheritance will be a thing of the past. Chortles; that is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Glad you mentioned this, I tried to post it last night (I know how to celebrate new year's eve) but hasn't appeared yet: BBC lunchtime news: Sean (to Cardiff estate agent (the one you mention): what's the problem? Cardiff estate agent: vendors need to set a realistic price. BBC evening news - same scenario, but has been re-shot: Sean to Cardiff estate agent: what's the problem? Cardiff estate agent (now with unnatural Gordon Brown style leer): the banks are not lending enough money to buyers. I kid you not. The words are approximate but the meaning is exact. What's going on here? This is serious manipulation by the BBC, very serious. Thanks for that AK. Can we find that on iPlayer? To confirm it? If so, then we should download and save it, to document that. This - one of these 2 versions - is serious manipulation by the BBC, very serious. We must confirm and document that. Edited January 2, 2011 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 This is stupid boomer bashing. How can you blame some one for when they were born? Is some one born on the 26th April 1966 some how better than some one born on the 4th of may 1961? So you say the boomers have all the best houses. do you think when they die they will be taking their houses with them? who will live in their houses when their dead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 This is stupid boomer bashing. How can you blame some one for when they were born? Is some one born on the 26th April 1966 some how better than some one born on the 4th of may 1961? So you say the boomers have all the best houses. do you think when they die they will be taking their houses with them? who will live in their houses when their dead? It isn't the year of their birth which is important. It is what they did later, i.e. they grew up and then voted. They voted for things which were expensive which if you sat down and did the maths could not be afforded. Such things could only be afforded by putting the debt onto people like my generation. They inherently knew it was unaffordable yet voted for it anyway letting others pick up the tab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) This is stupid boomer bashing. How can you blame some one for when they were born? Is some one born on the 26th April 1966 some how better than some one born on the 4th of may 1961? So you say the boomers have all the best houses. do you think when they die they will be taking their houses with them? who will live in their houses when their dead? My main problem here in the south is not with boomers per se, but with NIMBYs. Problem is, most NIMBYs are boomers and most boomers and NIMBYs. And to "kick the ladder" after oneself is a very despicable thing indeed. Edited January 2, 2011 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouch Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It isn't the year of their birth which is important. It is what they did later, i.e. they grew up and then voted. They voted for things which were expensive which if you sat down and did the maths could not be afforded. Such things could only be afforded by putting the debt onto people like my generation. They inherently knew it was unaffordable yet voted for it anyway letting others pick up the tab. What evidence do you have that "they" knew it was unaffordable? Also you imply that they didn't do the maths; if not how could "they" know it was unaffordable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 My main problem here in the south is not with boomers per se, but with NIMBYs. Problem is, most NIMBYs are boomers and most boomers and NIMBYs. And to "kick the ladder" after oneself is a very despicable thing indeed. ...but the house that is built in someones back yard does not mean it will be any more affordable to buy.......we need more living wage jobs that can pay for the houses....and better regulation of the money supply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.