A Gloomy Outlook From Ian Welsh ...

[Sour Mash]

Ian Welsh

Reads like a HPC bulletin point summation

He reckons it can go on another few years until around the 2020 timeframe, then ... boom

19) Stirling Newberry says, and I agree, that none of this is stable, but it will last as long as the majority of the baby boom, the silents and a good chunk of the Xers still think they can hang on to their little piece of the pie, and screw everyone else. It will most likely break down in 2020/24, which is when the demographics turn. Young people today are completely screwed, they have astronomical student loans, no or shitty jobs, can’t afford a house and can’t afford to start a family. Note that the places where revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, are happening, are places where the majority of the population is young. Latin America, the Middle East.

[The Masked Tulip]

Only another 12 or so years then

[pl1]

Only another 12 or so years then

Almost a generation.

[billybong]

Willetts line - hook line and sinker.

[The Masked Tulip]

2006 to 2024 - paid the mortgage off in that time.

[Austin Allegro]

Who are the 'silents'? I thought that was the lot before the WW2 'greatest generation', so surely they're nearly all dead by now?

[Si1]

Willetts line - hook line and sinker.

except he's talking about america - ie they're seeing a recovery under Obamma but he is trying to pretend they're not

[Olebrum]

10) Austerity is a means by which the rich can buy up assets which are not normally on the market for cheap.

Sums up 'austerity' perfectly.

[Errol]

ie they're seeing a recovery under Obamma

There is no recovery.

[pepactonius]

Who are the 'silents'? I thought that was the lot before the WW2 'greatest generation', so surely they're nearly all dead by now?

In the US, the Silent Generation is the one just before the Baby Boomers, and after the WWII or Greatest Generation.

They're probably the ones (and not the Boomers) who benefited most from the Peak Prosperity of the postwar era. Lots of Boomers will survive into the post prosperity era after 2020/2024, and die in poverty. (That probably includes me, since my normal lifespan should end in the mid to late 2020's)

[Liquid Goldfish]

2006 to 2024 - paid the mortgage off in that time.

I've been basing my thinking on buying about 2018 - although a longer time frame might actually suit.

[Sour Mash]

In the US, the Silent Generation is the one just before the Baby Boomers, and after the WWII or Greatest Generation.

They're probably the ones (and not the Boomers) who benefited most from the Peak Prosperity of the postwar era. Lots of Boomers will survive into the post prosperity era after 2020/2024, and die in poverty. (That probably includes me, since my normal lifespan should end in the mid to late 2020's)

Pretty much everyone was 'benefiting' from the endless increase in state debt and the out of control consumer credit bubble which has collectively enabled the West to live beyond its means, until it burst.

The older you are, the more you received. Now that we are seeing the bust following the boom, those who are feeling the effects the hardest are the young. The ones who got the benefits the longest are better placed.

The issue here is that enacting the measures needed to fix this mess involves taking away much of the loot that people accumulated over the course of the boom. Obviously the older crowd aren't keen on surrendering their large amounts of accumulated wealth whereas the younger generation who have comparatively little or no wealth to lose and no hope of generating any until the economy is fixed are very much in favour of it. So long as there's a majority of people unwilling to take a hit in their 'wealth' there will be no political support for change.

This works out pretty well for the elite as they are of course the people who accumulated the most wealth of all, by quite some measure. Indeed any wealth accumulated by the rest of the population is just a coincidental by product. It should be 'interesting', to say the least, once there is enough popular demand for a change in the status quo to the point where the elite either face giving up their position or going from covertly running the show by pulling strings to overtly dictating things. There are certainly enough repressive laws in place and civil liberties stolen to give them a good shot at doing this.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Pretty much everyone was 'benefiting' from the endless increase in state debt and the out of control consumer credit bubble which has collectively enabled the West to live beyond its means, until it burst.

The older you are, the more you received. Now that we are seeing the bust following the boom, those who are feeling the effects the hardest are the young. The ones who got the benefits the longest are better placed.

The issue here is that enacting the measures needed to fix this mess involves taking away much of the loot that people accumulated over the course of the boom. Obviously the older crowd aren't keen on surrendering their large amounts of accumulated wealth whereas the younger generation who have comparatively little or no wealth to lose and no hope of generating any until the economy is fixed are very much in favour of it. So long as there's a majority of people unwilling to take a hit in their 'wealth' there will be no political support for change.

This works out pretty well for the elite as they are of course the people who accumulated the most wealth of all, by quite some measure. Indeed any wealth accumulated by the rest of the population is just a coincidental by product. It should be 'interesting', to say the least, once there is enough popular demand for a change in the status quo to the point where the elite either face giving up their position or going from covertly running the show by pulling strings to overtly dictating things. There are certainly enough repressive laws in place and civil liberties stolen to give them a good shot at doing this.

You just need to read the comments on the Telegraph and Mail sites when there's any suggestion that pensioner benefits might be cut! A total reversal from when they are on there calling for younger scrounging scum to have their money slashed - it's all "it's not fair, our generation didn't have iPads" even though they probabaly all had colour TVs which would probably have cost them the equivalent of £5K in todays' money.

Edited September 5, 2012 by oldsport

[Sour Mash]

You just need to read the comments on the Telegraph and Mail sites when there's any suggestion that pensioner benefits might be cut! A total reversal from when they are on there calling for younger scrounging scum to have their money slashed - it's all "it's not fair, our generation didn't have iPads" even though they probabaly all had colour TVs which would probably have cost them the equivalent of £5K in todays' money.

State pension benefits aren't exactly generous ... certainly not compared to the raft of benefits that a young family can receive, even one where the adults have never contributed to the social security system (2nd/3rd-generation benefits claimants or 'asylum seekers') even though many pensioners will have contributed throughout their working lives.

The real wealth that the older generation enjoy is in the price of their property assets and job-related pensions which are typically unbelievably generous compared to what is on offer today.

The market will IMO eventually take care of the overpriced property assets (although TPTB will try to prop them up for their own reasons) and I guess we'll start to see more and more defaults on pension promises/obligations. Certainly the terms of pensions have been scaled back massively over the last few decades for new entrants and it's not unusual even for existing schemes to be unilaterally revised to much less favourable terms for the future pensioners, particularly galling for people close to retirement.

[Liquid Goldfish]

State pension benefits aren't exactly generous ... certainly not compared to the raft of benefits that a young family can receive, even one where the adults have never contributed to the social security system (2nd/3rd-generation benefits claimants or 'asylum seekers') even though many pensioners will have contributed throughout their working lives.

The real wealth that the older generation enjoy is in the price of their property assets and job-related pensions which are typically unbelievably generous compared to what is on offer today.

The market will IMO eventually take care of the overpriced property assets (although TPTB will try to prop them up for their own reasons) and I guess we'll start to see more and more defaults on pension promises/obligations. Certainly the terms of pensions have been scaled back massively over the last few decades for new entrants and it's not unusual even for existing schemes to be unilaterally revised to much less favourable terms for the future pensioners, particularly galling for people close to retirement.

More than two thirds of all benefits payments go to OAPs! But they're not going to give up a penny without a fight. It's toxic politically even to try e.g. the attempts to limit Winter Fuel payments. I'm just amazed at the strength of reaction any time it's suggested. The other common one is "we paid 11% interest on our mortgages" without realising that this was because of high inflation so was pretty painless as wages also went up massively and this was what actually inflated away their debts. And then they say how hard they worked, but at as you say, today's young will have to work just as hard but for twice as long and for only half as much job-related pension.

Edited September 5, 2012 by oldsport

[Sour Mash]

More than two thirds of all benefits payments go to OAPs! But they're not going to give up a penny without a fight. It's toxic politically even to try e.g. the attempts to limit Winter Fuel payments.

Do you have a breakdown of benefits payments? Seems extremely unlikely to me that 2/3 of the total social security spend is for pensions and other age-dependant benefits.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Do you have a breakdown of benefits payments? Seems extremely unlikely to me that 2/3 of the total social security spend is for pensions and other age-dependant benefits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9332117/Wealthier-pensioners-could-lose-winter-fuel-allowance-and-free-bus-passes.html

Pensioners currently receive benefits worth £107 billion – double the amount paid to working-age people.

[bmf]

Do you have a breakdown of benefits payments? Seems extremely unlikely to me that 2/3 of the total social security spend is for pensions and other age-dependant benefits.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2011UKbn_12bc1n_002040#ukgs302

old age pensions 87bn

education 32bn

unemployment 8bn

family + children 24bn

total spend 514bn

So pension spend for public pensions is 8 time unemployment "scroungers".

This of course gives no visibility on all the young people working whose efforts go towards filling private defined benefit black holes.

edit: old age pensions are the single biggest cost by a country mile. And this is at the start of the boomer retirement. That's why I'm going to emigrate.

Boom baby boom! Let's party!

Edited September 5, 2012 by bmf

[Sour Mash]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9332117/Wealthier-pensioners-could-lose-winter-fuel-allowance-and-free-bus-passes.html

I note that the Telegraph don't provide any reference for the claim and it's pretty vague. Seems to me that they are just trying to stoke up public support from one section of the population for imposing 'austerity' on another section of the population. "Yeah - let's teach those evil pensioners, we'll never be old!"

[Sour Mash]

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2011UKbn_12bc1n_002040#ukgs302

old age pensions 87bn

education 32bn

unemployment 8bn

family + children 24bn

total spend 514bn

So pension spend for public pensions is 8 time unemployment "scroungers".

This of course gives no visibility on all the young people working whose efforts go towards filling private defined benefit black holes.

edit: old age pensions are the single biggest cost by a country mile. And this is at the start of the boomer retirement. That's why I'm going to emigrate.

Presumably you're also going to top yourself when you retire so that you're not any kind of financial burden on anyone else, right?

[bmf]

Presumably you're also going to top yourself when you retire so that you're not any kind of financial burden on anyone else, right?

I'll live within my means now thanks. Actually I'll live well within my means and pay for all the people who fancied a 30 year holiday and wanted 0.5MM for their shack.

There's your data. You were disputing the fact that old people are bleeding the UK dry. Here is the data.

Edited September 5, 2012 by bmf

[@contradevian]

They're probably the ones (and not the Boomers) who benefited most from the Peak Prosperity of the postwar era. Lots of Boomers will survive into the post prosperity era after 2020/2024, and die in poverty. (That probably includes me, since my normal lifespan should end in the mid to late 2020's)

Me too if I last as long as my father did.

[Sour Mash]

I'll live within my means now thanks. Actually I'll live well within my means and pay for all the people who fancied a 30 year holiday and wanted 0.5MM for their shack.

There's your data. You were disputing the fact that old people are bleeding the UK dry. Here is the data.

I'm very much interested in how you plan to fully fund support for yourself after retirement as you seem to think that claiming a pension is just theft from the state. Do you plan on saving a huge amount of what you earn or are you prepared to endure an extremely minimal standard of living? Perhaps a mix of both.

I am surprised to find out how much of a proportion of public spending goes on pensions - that doesn't however mean that that pensioners are somehow getting an unfair share as in 'bleeding the UK dry' which is a pretty pejorative turn of phrase. They paid into a system which promised to provide them benefits in old age.

By the same token you could say that 'the NHS is bleeding the country dry' and decide that there will be no more state provided healthcare as all those bloody sick people are costing taxpayers money.

[bmf]

I'm very much interested in how you plan to fully fund support for yourself after retirement as you seem to think that claiming a pension is just theft from the state. Do you plan on saving a huge amount of what you earn or are you prepared to endure an extremely minimal standard of living? Perhaps a mix of both.

Defined benefit is theft. Unfunded public liabilities are theft, albeit the state is just as culpable for this, driven by lunatics voting for xmas every day.

I am surprised to find out how much of a proportion of public spending goes on pensions - that doesn't however mean that that pensioners are somehow getting an unfair share as in 'bleeding the UK dry' which is a pretty pejorative turn of phrase. They paid into a system which promised to provide them benefits in old age.

Course you are. You've been on this board for god knows how long defending all this stuff yet you've got no clue. That's the true boomer crime - the utter arrogance of their position with zero knowledge, based purely on a sense of entitlement. It's that attitude that's got us where we are today.

By the same token you could say that 'the NHS is bleeding the country dry' and decide that there will be no more state provided healthcare as all those bloody sick people are costing taxpayers money.

Shite logic.

Let's just forget the whole thing and you guys keep on going on holiday, buying new cars and enjoying the sunshine whilst that chart goes exponential. We all know that's what's nailed on anyhow.

[Liquid Goldfish]

delete

Edited September 5, 2012 by oldsport