Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Snugglybear

Middle-Class Young 'will Fare Worse Than Their Parents'

Recommended Posts

I expect there'll be plenty of people saying "Why do we need a Commission to tell us this?" However, the said Commission was set up by the Government and it will at least be amusing watching Cameron et al scrabble for excuses for ignoring its report.

Observer story here http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/12/middle-class-young-people-future-worse-parents?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position1:anchor%20image

Social Mobility and Chid Poverty Commision website here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission

Middle-class young 'will fare worse than their parents'

David Cameron's social mobility and child poverty inquiry to issue grim warning as debt and job fears create 'perfect storm'

Today's middle-class children are on track to be the first in more than a century to be materially less well off in adulthood than their parents, a government commission is expected to warn this week.

Leaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers.

The social mobility and child poverty commission, established by David Cameron, is expected to warn that government initiatives have all too often been aimed at the poorest 10%. Yet the inability to get on in life is a now a major and growing problem for middle-class children and this group is in dire need of attention, it is expected to report.

A Whitehall source said: "This will be controversial, but for the first time in over a century there is a real risk that the next generation of adults ends up worse off than today's generation. This is a problem for the children of parents with above-average incomes, not just a problem for those at the bottom. Many, many children face the prospect of having lower living standards than their parents."

The findings, to be laid before parliament on Thursday by education minister David Laws, will electrify the political debate over the so-called "squeezed middle", who have done so badly in the economic downturn.

Such is the expected political impact that the planned publication date for the commission's report was delayed so that it did not clash with the party conference season and become "a political football", according to one government source.

Among its conclusions, the commission is expected to say that those at particular risk are low-attaining children who are not poor enough to enjoy additional help from the system, but whose parents are not wealthy enough to insulate them from failure.

Pupils on free school meals benefit from an additional spend of £14,300 to improve their chances in life through the pupil premium. Yet nearly two-thirds of those who fail to attain an A to C grade in English and maths are from backgrounds not considered to be deprived. The cross-party commission, chaired by former Labour minister Alan Milburn and whose deputy is John Major's one-time education secretary Baroness Shephard, describes this group as the "missing piece in the jigsaw" of the government's education policies.

The commission is also expected to warn that children in the south-east but outside London are being let down by the system. Children in the capital on free school meals do 50% better in their GCSEs than those in other regions. A major cause of this geographical shift, the commission is expected to say, is that a higher proportion of high-quality heads and teachers live in disadvantaged areas in London than elsewhere, in part because of the so-called "London weighting" wage lift for those in the capital. Some of the weakest schools, it is set to point out, are located in bastions of middle England, such as Peterborough, west Berkshire, Herefordshire and satellite areas around London.

The commission is also expected to warn of a gathering "perfect storm" of graduate debt, lack of finance to buy homes and job insecurity that threatens middle-class children as they emerge from full-time education. Graduates will come out of university with up to £50,000 of debt to their name; the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who own their own homes has fallen from 60% to 40% in the past decade and is expected to plunge further; and the number of 18- to 24-year-olds unemployed for more than two years is at its highest since 1994.

The commission is expected to note that for the first time, a grandmother in her 80s can expect to enjoy higher living standards than someone in their 20s even if they are working, due to housing costs and poor wage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read a sorry tale over on the employment forum on MSE.

The mans daughter was in a dilemma as the job centre were trying to force her onto an apprenticeship - to do what she had been doing full time ifor a full wage before being made unemployed.

With travel costs, she can't afford to even do it, regardless.

Edited by Tonkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect there'll be plenty of people saying "Why do we need a Commission to tell us this?" However, the said Commission was set up by the Government and it will at least be amusing watching Cameron et al scrabble for excuses for ignoring its report.

Observer story here http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/12/middle-class-young-people-future-worse-parents?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position1:anchor%20image

Social Mobility and Chid Poverty Commision website here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission

Middle-class young 'will fare worse than their parents'

David Cameron's social mobility and child poverty inquiry to issue grim warning as debt and job fears create 'perfect storm'

Today's middle-class children are on track to be the first in more than a century to be materially less well off in adulthood than their parents, a government commission is expected to warn this week.

Leaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers.

The social mobility and child poverty commission, established by David Cameron, is expected to warn that government initiatives have all too often been aimed at the poorest 10%. Yet the inability to get on in life is a now a major and growing problem for middle-class children and this group is in dire need of attention, it is expected to report.

A Whitehall source said: "This will be controversial, but for the first time in over a century there is a real risk that the next generation of adults ends up worse off than today's generation. This is a problem for the children of parents with above-average incomes, not just a problem for those at the bottom. Many, many children face the prospect of having lower living standards than their parents."

The findings, to be laid before parliament on Thursday by education minister David Laws, will electrify the political debate over the so-called "squeezed middle", who have done so badly in the economic downturn.

Such is the expected political impact that the planned publication date for the commission's report was delayed so that it did not clash with the party conference season and become "a political football", according to one government source.

Among its conclusions, the commission is expected to say that those at particular risk are low-attaining children who are not poor enough to enjoy additional help from the system, but whose parents are not wealthy enough to insulate them from failure.

Pupils on free school meals benefit from an additional spend of £14,300 to improve their chances in life through the pupil premium. Yet nearly two-thirds of those who fail to attain an A to C grade in English and maths are from backgrounds not considered to be deprived. The cross-party commission, chaired by former Labour minister Alan Milburn and whose deputy is John Major's one-time education secretary Baroness Shephard, describes this group as the "missing piece in the jigsaw" of the government's education policies.

The commission is also expected to warn that children in the south-east but outside London are being let down by the system. Children in the capital on free school meals do 50% better in their GCSEs than those in other regions. A major cause of this geographical shift, the commission is expected to say, is that a higher proportion of high-quality heads and teachers live in disadvantaged areas in London than elsewhere, in part because of the so-called "London weighting" wage lift for those in the capital. Some of the weakest schools, it is set to point out, are located in bastions of middle England, such as Peterborough, west Berkshire, Herefordshire and satellite areas around London.

The commission is also expected to warn of a gathering "perfect storm" of graduate debt, lack of finance to buy homes and job insecurity that threatens middle-class children as they emerge from full-time education. Graduates will come out of university with up to £50,000 of debt to their name; the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who own their own homes has fallen from 60% to 40% in the past decade and is expected to plunge further; and the number of 18- to 24-year-olds unemployed for more than two years is at its highest since 1994.

The commission is expected to note that for the first time, a grandmother in her 80s can expect to enjoy higher living standards than someone in their 20s even if they are working, due to housing costs and poor wage

How much has it cost for this commission to state the bleeding obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read a sorry tale over on the employment forum on MSE.

The mans daughter was in a dilemma as the job centre were trying to force her onto an apprenticeship - to do what she had been doing full time ifor a full wage before being made unemployed.

With travel costs, she can't afford to even do it, regardless.

But she won't be classed as unemployed and that`s all that matters we are just statistics there to be manipulated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read a sorry tale over on the employment forum on MSE.

The mans daughter was in a dilemma as the job centre were trying to force her onto an apprenticeship - to do what she had been doing full time ifor a full wage before being made unemployed.

With travel costs, she can't afford to even do it, regardless.

But she won't be classed as unemployed and that`s all that matters we are just statistics there to be manipulated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But she won't be classed as unemployed and that`s all that matters we are just statistics there to be manipulated

Comments under the article are interesting, many couldn't care less about the middle class, one points out that a person working flat out in their twenties is worse off than any 80 year old who is not working!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've heard all the help to buy rhetoric.

Cameron will say that Help to Buy is spearheading their policies to help social mobility.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments under the article are interesting, many couldn't care less about the middle class, one points out that a person working flat out in their twenties is worse off than any 80 year old who is not working!

When I left school a second year apprentices wage was enough to run a car and have a life (just ) and I thought i was hard done by

Look at the same wage now and see what it buys one ,I was either very lucky or the young of today are being screwed IMO it`s the latter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments under the article are interesting, many couldn't care less about the middle class, one points out that a person working flat out in their twenties is worse off than any 80 year old who is not working!

Really, does the 80 year old have lots of savings, assets, investments? Or are we still pretending that there is great wealth locked in the bricks that they sit in :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect there'll be plenty of people saying "Why do we need a Commission to tell us this?" However, the said Commission was set up by the Government and it will at least be amusing watching Cameron et al scrabble for excuses for ignoring its report.

Observer story here http://www.theguardi...:anchor%20image

Social Mobility and Chid Poverty Commision website here https://www.gov.uk/g...erty-commission

Middle-class young 'will fare worse than their parents'

David Cameron's social mobility and child poverty inquiry to issue grim warning as debt and job fears create 'perfect storm'

Today's middle-class children are on track to be the first in more than a century to be materially less well off in adulthood than their parents, a government commission is expected to warn this week.

Leaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers.

The social mobility and child poverty commission, established by David Cameron, is expected to warn that government initiatives have all too often been aimed at the poorest 10%. Yet the inability to get on in life is a now a major and growing problem for middle-class children and this group is in dire need of attention, it is expected to report.

A Whitehall source said: "This will be controversial, but for the first time in over a century there is a real risk that the next generation of adults ends up worse off than today's generation. This is a problem for the children of parents with above-average incomes, not just a problem for those at the bottom. Many, many children face the prospect of having lower living standards than their parents."

The findings, to be laid before parliament on Thursday by education minister David Laws, will electrify the political debate over the so-called "squeezed middle", who have done so badly in the economic downturn.

Such is the expected political impact that the planned publication date for the commission's report was delayed so that it did not clash with the party conference season and become "a political football", according to one government source.

Among its conclusions, the commission is expected to say that those at particular risk are low-attaining children who are not poor enough to enjoy additional help from the system, but whose parents are not wealthy enough to insulate them from failure.

Pupils on free school meals benefit from an additional spend of £14,300 to improve their chances in life through the pupil premium. Yet nearly two-thirds of those who fail to attain an A to C grade in English and maths are from backgrounds not considered to be deprived. The cross-party commission, chaired by former Labour minister Alan Milburn and whose deputy is John Major's one-time education secretary Baroness Shephard, describes this group as the "missing piece in the jigsaw" of the government's education policies.

The commission is also expected to warn that children in the south-east but outside London are being let down by the system. Children in the capital on free school meals do 50% better in their GCSEs than those in other regions. A major cause of this geographical shift, the commission is expected to say, is that a higher proportion of high-quality heads and teachers live in disadvantaged areas in London than elsewhere, in part because of the so-called "London weighting" wage lift for those in the capital. Some of the weakest schools, it is set to point out, are located in bastions of middle England, such as Peterborough, west Berkshire, Herefordshire and satellite areas around London.

The commission is also expected to warn of a gathering "perfect storm" of graduate debt, lack of finance to buy homes and job insecurity that threatens middle-class children as they emerge from full-time education. Graduates will come out of university with up to £50,000 of debt to their name; the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who own their own homes has fallen from 60% to 40% in the past decade and is expected to plunge further; and the number of 18- to 24-year-olds unemployed for more than two years is at its highest since 1994.

The commission is expected to note that for the first time, a grandmother in her 80s can expect to enjoy higher living standards than someone in their 20s even if they are working, due to housing costs and poor wage

Not a very bright move, why would anyone sign up for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I left school a second year apprentices wage was enough to run a car and have a life (just ) and I thought i was hard done by

Look at the same wage now and see what it buys one ,I was either very lucky or the young of today are being screwed IMO it`s the latter

I guess the problem to some extent is that the old all vote, almost always lab or con...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But she won't be classed as unemployed and that`s all that matters we are just statistics there to be manipulated

Correct...

When I left school a second year apprentices wage was enough to run a car and have a life (just ) and I thought i was hard done by

Look at the same wage now and see what it buys one ,I was either very lucky or the young of today are being screwed IMO it`s the latter

Correct.......in my day you didn't even need proven paper qualifications, you could walk from school, into a job with prospects, then walk into another job of your choice if you so chose....no CV required. ;)

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the use of the future tense in this report. Today's 20- and 30somethings are already worse off than their equivalents were 30 years ago.

Is this some kind of weird admitting-but-not-admitting-that-things-are-bad politician speak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the use of the future tense in this report. Today's 20- and 30somethings are already worse off than their equivalents were 30 years ago.

Is this some kind of weird admitting-but-not-admitting-that-things-are-bad politician speak?

Yes. It is a clever way of saying to their audience: look how bad things are going to get IN THE FUTURE. Anything that happens IN THE FUTURE is someone elses fault. Any worries you have about NOW and the fuc8kups of pollies of the past 30 years are wrong, because you should be worrying about THE FUTURE.

Now go back to watching x factor and don't even think of not voting LibLabCon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the use of the future tense in this report. Today's 20- and 30somethings are already worse off than their equivalents were 30 years ago.

Is this some kind of weird admitting-but-not-admitting-that-things-are-bad politician speak?

Not necessarily -

Perhaps 'today's' young in the report are the children of today's 30 and 40 somethings, who are already worse off than their parents

Perhaps things can will only get worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Whitehall source said: "This will be controversial, but for the first time in over a century there is a real risk that the next generation of adults ends up worse off than today's generation.

So the zero hours contracts etc crazy house prices economy isn't the worst they can come up with. Incredibly there's worse to come :o

"A Whitehall source". A source not wanting to be named or to be associated with the comment?

"This will be controversial, ..". For sure it will be to those in Parliament who believe all the incredible guff that they help to spread all the time.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect there'll be plenty of people saying "Why do we need a Commission to tell us this?" However, the said Commission was set up by the Government and it will at least be amusing watching Cameron et al scrabble for excuses for ignoring its report.

Observer story here http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/12/middle-class-young-people-future-worse-parents?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position1:anchor%20image

Social Mobility and Chid Poverty Commision website here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission

Middle-class young 'will fare worse than their parents'

David Cameron's social mobility and child poverty inquiry to issue grim warning as debt and job fears create 'perfect storm'

Today's middle-class children are on track to be the first in more than a century to be materially less well off in adulthood than their parents, a government commission is expected to warn this week.

Leaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers.

The social mobility and child poverty commission, established by David Cameron, is expected to warn that government initiatives have all too often been aimed at the poorest 10%. Yet the inability to get on in life is a now a major and growing problem for middle-class children and this group is in dire need of attention, it is expected to report.

A Whitehall source said: "This will be controversial, but for the first time in over a century there is a real risk that the next generation of adults ends up worse off than today's generation. This is a problem for the children of parents with above-average incomes, not just a problem for those at the bottom. Many, many children face the prospect of having lower living standards than their parents."

The findings, to be laid before parliament on Thursday by education minister David Laws, will electrify the political debate over the so-called "squeezed middle", who have done so badly in the economic downturn.

Such is the expected political impact that the planned publication date for the commission's report was delayed so that it did not clash with the party conference season and become "a political football", according to one government source.

Among its conclusions, the commission is expected to say that those at particular risk are low-attaining children who are not poor enough to enjoy additional help from the system, but whose parents are not wealthy enough to insulate them from failure.

Pupils on free school meals benefit from an additional spend of £14,300 to improve their chances in life through the pupil premium. Yet nearly two-thirds of those who fail to attain an A to C grade in English and maths are from backgrounds not considered to be deprived. The cross-party commission, chaired by former Labour minister Alan Milburn and whose deputy is John Major's one-time education secretary Baroness Shephard, describes this group as the "missing piece in the jigsaw" of the government's education policies.

The commission is also expected to warn that children in the south-east but outside London are being let down by the system. Children in the capital on free school meals do 50% better in their GCSEs than those in other regions. A major cause of this geographical shift, the commission is expected to say, is that a higher proportion of high-quality heads and teachers live in disadvantaged areas in London than elsewhere, in part because of the so-called "London weighting" wage lift for those in the capital. Some of the weakest schools, it is set to point out, are located in bastions of middle England, such as Peterborough, west Berkshire, Herefordshire and satellite areas around London.

The commission is also expected to warn of a gathering "perfect storm" of graduate debt, lack of finance to buy homes and job insecurity that threatens middle-class children as they emerge from full-time education. Graduates will come out of university with up to £50,000 of debt to their name; the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who own their own homes has fallen from 60% to 40% in the past decade and is expected to plunge further; and the number of 18- to 24-year-olds unemployed for more than two years is at its highest since 1994.

The commission is expected to note that for the first time, a grandmother in her 80s can expect to enjoy higher living standards than someone in their 20s even if they are working, due to housing costs and poor wage

Lots of stating the bl00dy obvious but where is the root cause analysis and plans to resolve the problem? Is the UK a poorer country than it was? or is it that it is less equal? I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of stating the bl00dy obvious but where is the root cause analysis and plans to resolve the problem? Is the UK a poorer country than it was? or is it that it is less equal? I

To be fair, the Observer story is based on whatever's been leaked. The entire report goes before Parliament on Thursday, when I presume it will be published.

There may or may not be policy suggestions / recommendations in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the Observer story is based on whatever's been leaked. The entire report goes before Parliament on Thursday, when I presume it will be published.

There may or may not be policy suggestions / recommendations in it.

I would expect any recommendations to be around sharing out a smaller cake more equally as the bit of the original cake that was previously available has been smuggled out of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest unfunded_liability

Comments under the article are interesting, many couldn't care less about the middle class, one points out that a person working flat out in their twenties is worse off than any 80 year old who is not working!

Really, does the 80 year old have lots of savings, assets, investments? Or are we still pretending that there is great wealth locked in the bricks that they sit in :lol:

Even if the 80 year old doesn't have much in the way of savings assets or investments, they wont have to worry about:

  • starting a family

  • feeding and housing a family

  • getting on the housing ladder

  • paying a mortgage

  • getting a job

  • keeping a job

  • paying down student loans

  • having any sort of life while paying for the above

as they did all that during the credit-fueled boom years, and now either live in their own fully paid property or council housing, with state and possibly work pensions.

I'm not saying the average 80-something is rolling in it, but they had it easier (gadgets/facebook/x factor/ipods aside).

Edited by unfunded_liability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Whitehall source said: "This will be controversial, but for the first time in over a century there is a real risk that the next generation of adults ends up worse off than today's generation. This is a problem for the children of parents with above-average incomes, not just a problem for those at the bottom. Many, many children face the prospect of having lower living standards than their parents."

I think adding to the strange language is a confusion of what the political class thinks the definition of an adult is. Many of today's 20- and 30-somethings don't look like adults to them. Many are not economically independent from their parents and have carried out very few of the major life events expected of adults (e.g. buying a house, getting a steady job, getting married, having children).

The politicians want to keep referring to these people as children whose proper adult lives just haven't quite started yet. I guess it sounds better than admitting that they are underemployed and underhoused adults whose life prospects are not improving as they get older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read a sorry tale over on the employment forum on MSE.

The mans daughter was in a dilemma as the job centre were trying to force her onto an apprenticeship - to do what she had been doing full time ifor a full wage before being made unemployed.

With travel costs, she can't afford to even do it, regardless.

So we should just pay for her to sit at home instead then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we should just pay for her to sit at home instead then?

Do you not understand the concept that with travel costs included there is no way she can afford to work for £2.50 per hour??

Heck, can anyone that doesn't live rent and utility bill free with their parents??

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.