The Myth Of The Baby Boomers

[Dorkins]

I don't think many of the the generation Ys have any concept of how little their parents had to live on for the first half of their lives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8414447/How-UK-incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html

Both my 1920s-born grandparents and 1950s-born parents raised their children in stable housing (a council semi and an owner-occupied detached respectively) on a single full time wage. My generation has zero chance of achieving that. But still, that article has a column of figures from the government that goes up and up so I guess I must be wrong.

[SillyBilly]

One question that has not been answered is......Who else do you think would be owning all the best houses? surely those who have been living and working the longest would have collected the most.....they will not own what they have got forever.... unless knocked down every house will eventually pass down to the following generations....

You miss the point. People want to earn their own crust, not inherit someone elses. My parents could still be alive when I'm 60, I'd rather not have a penny (or house) from them and an affordable house when I'm younger. Just like it worked out for them.

[olde guto]

For me, there's always a nagging doubt that the boomer narrative has been developed as a diversion, and to create division. After all, it is very easier to identify a boomer - basically anyone older and richer than you - which for many of the young is likely to be a large number (and I suspect that's been true for at least the last century when people were able to move beyond living hand to mouth and begin to save and accumulate even meagre assets).

The real question we should be asking is why with all of the additional productivity since the 1970s are we - old and young alike - not seeing more of it. I don't begrudge the (middle class) boomers a long, comfortable and healthy retirement in decent homes, I just think it should be open to all, and it clearly isn't right now (and nor should people have to wait until their parents, or grandparents, die to access any wealth).

It would be interesting to see how wealth distribution has varied over the last half century or so. My strong suspicion is that huge amounts of it have concentrated in a increasingly small minority of people - and the process has gathered momentum in the last couple of decades.

Perhaps people would have more time for them if they took their share of the blame for the state the country is in and stopped claiming everything they have is through their hard work alone.

They bemoan the "youth of today" and ignore the fact that it is they who raised the "youth of today" to be the way they are.

They say today's teenagers have too many gadgets, but ignore the fact that many of these gadgets cost, in real terms, less than the transistor radio they had.

They say today's youngster drink too much, when statistics show they are now drinking less and it's the 50+ generation whose "civilised" bottle of wine a night is probably doing more damage health wise.

They say today's youngsters should save like they did to buy a house, totally ignorant of the fact that by the time they've paid their rent, paid for food, paid for transport to work and paid the bills they might be bloody lucky if they've got any money left over.

They complain that youngsters get themselves into debt too quickly, which generation introduced the student loan, which generation embraced easy credit?

I use the term baby boomer primarily as a derogatory term for those over 50 who behave in the ways I've described.

I'm Generation X, some of us have helped screw-up the country good and proper (closer to boomer age funnily enough), others (like myself) towards the tail-end are on the receiving end (like Generation Y).

10 things boomers won't tell you (US centric) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-boomers-wont-tell-you-2013-07-12

10 things Gen X won't tell you (US Centric) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-generation-x-wont-tell-you-2014-06-27

[porca misèria]

They bemoan the "youth of today" and ignore the fact that it is they who raised the "youth of today" to be the way they are.

Who bemoans the "youth of today"? The naked prejudice I see is in your post.

They say today's teenagers have too many gadgets, but ignore the fact that many of these gadgets cost, in real terms, less than the transistor radio they had.

Who says? Your strawman built on prejudice again.

They say today's youngster drink too much, when statistics show they are now drinking less and it's the 50+ generation whose "civilised" bottle of wine a night is probably doing more damage health wise.

Who says? Of course a minority of kids binge and get blind drunk, and a minority of older folks drink wine every day. And no doubt a much smaller minority are full-blown alcoholics who might knock back a whole bottle at once on a regular basis.

They say today's youngsters should save like they did to buy a house, totally ignorant of the fact that by the time they've paid their rent, paid for food, paid for transport to work and paid the bills they might be bloody lucky if they've got any money left over.

Oh dear. You mean you get well under national minimum wage? Or you mean you live with a lot more luxury than older generations did? 'Cos minimum wage would leave you a lot richer than I was in my first job after graduating - before my escape to Germany.

They complain that youngsters get themselves into debt too quickly, which generation introduced the student loan, which generation embraced easy credit?

Who complains? Granted, student finance is indeed a horrible mess, but your "they" looks like another strawman.

I use the term baby boomer primarily as a derogatory term for those over 50 who behave in the ways I've described.

Right. You use "baby boomer" like Shakespeare or Dickens[1] used the Jew. Does it give you great pleasure when a "baby boomer" shares Shylock's or Fagin's eventual fate?

[1] Along with most people, for hundreds of years, until events of last century shocked us out of it.

[canbuywontbuy]

They say today's teenagers have too many gadgets, but ignore the fact that many of these gadgets cost, in real terms, less than the transistor radio they had.

They say today's youngster drink too much, when statistics show they are now drinking less and it's the 50+ generation whose "civilised" bottle of wine a night is probably doing more damage health wise.

Good points. Half of nightclubs in the UK have closed in the last 10 years. Many reports back up what you say about the hardest-drinking age range (over 50s). An iPad/iPhone costs as much as a week's worth of nights out, and can last 5 years+.

Anyway, we get what we get. The younger generations have learnt to be frugal. They don't go out as much as previous generations did. Blame Facebook as much as being skint, but that's a fact. They spend less because they have less. When they're in their 30s and 40s, their frugality will either be entrenched, and/or still necessary. Hardly good portents for the future economy.

[MrPin]

Right. You use "baby boomer" like Shakespeare or Dickens[1] used the Jew. Does it give you great pleasure when a "baby boomer" shares Shylock's or Fagin's eventual fate?

[1] Along with most people, for hundreds of years, until events of last century shocked us out of it.

I like the Jew analogy, BTW.

You don't see the poorer older people, because they cannot afford to go out, so all you see is flash old gits in new cars. .

Gives a distorted perception.

But he same applies to younger people also. The ones without money won't be found shopping.

[campervanman]

For me, there's always a nagging doubt that the boomer narrative has been developed as a diversion, and to create division. After all, it is very easier to identify a boomer - basically anyone older and richer than you - which for many of the young is likely to be a large number (and I suspect that's been true for at least the last century when people were able to move beyond living hand to mouth and begin to save and accumulate even meagre assets).

The real question we should be asking is why with all of the additional productivity since the 1970s are we - old and young alike - not seeing more of it. I don't begrudge the (middle class) boomers a long, comfortable and healthy retirement in decent homes, I just think it should be open to all, and it clearly isn't right now (and nor should people have to wait until their parents, or grandparents, die to access any wealth).

It would be interesting to see how wealth distribution has varied over the last half century or so. My strong suspicion is that huge amounts of it have concentrated in a increasingly small minority of people - and the process has gathered momentum in the last couple of decades.

+1

The post war generation benefitted from a period between 1945 and 1980 when the share of gdp that went to 99% of the population increased. Since then there has been a steady decline in this share and the UK is now back to pre war levels of income distribution with the 1% now taking at least 10% more than they did 35 years ago. 10% of the UK income reverting back to 1970's wealth distribution would go a long way to giving post boomer generations similar life outcomes to those available to previous generations but all the time people swallow the Willets line that deflects people away from the real cause the less likely it becomes for future generations to have what we had.

[iamnumerate]

23 years ago would put you into that 'golden age' of 1990s lower prices, lower interest rates, and a first generation of accidental landlords kick-starting a non-slum rental market.

Not at all the same as the market I graduated into before fleeing abroad.

Can you prove that housing today is cheaper than 30 years ago?

[Mrs Bear]

Both my 1920s-born grandparents and 1950s-born parents raised their children in stable housing (a council semi and an owner-occupied detached respectively) on a single full time wage. My generation has zero chance of achieving that. But still, that article has a column of figures from the government that goes up and up so I guess I must be wrong.

My folks had four kids and when I was 6 bought a nice 4 bedroom house in Purley, Surrey, and paid a couple of lots of school fees, on one very ordinary salary. My mother didn't go out to work again until I was about 14. They were always broke, and there was never any money for anything else - anything like orange squash was for birthday parties only - but they managed it.

Many years later my mother (born 1918) would tut tut to me about how dreadful it was that mothers were going out to work instead of looking after their small children. I would be exasperated and tell her that nobody nowadays could even begin to afford the house on just one average salary, never mind school fees. And this was ages ago - I well remember telling her that even a one bed flat anywhere near us (Kingston) was going for £60K now, so you can tell how long ago that was.

[Si1]

The comparison with the Jews fails to reflect the fact that Jews didn't hold political power in any significant way in pre 20th century Europe. They had some influence in the finance sector so they wrongly got tarnished by association with bankers.

The boomer demographic really have had the balance of political power over the previous decades and have abused it. I think the better comparison is with Marie Antoinette and the French royal family.

[canbuywontbuy]

The comparison with jews is ridiculous - next up, the comparison of the younger generations to the nazis. Nazis with iPads.

[Si1]

The comparison with jews is ridiculous - next up, the comparison of the younger generations to the nazis. Nazis with iPads.

A beard and a smartphone is the new Nazi uniform...

[porca misèria]

The comparison with the Jews

Is your strawman.

There's no comparison of boomers (any definition) with jews. The very strong comparison is between anti-"boomer" sentiment and antisemitism. It is the same trait in human nature manifesting itself.

[Si1]

Is your strawman.

There's no comparison of boomers (any definition) with jews. The very strong comparison is between anti-"boomer" sentiment and antisemitism. It is the same trait in human nature manifesting itself.

It's your rationalisation. Splitting hairs.

[bankstersparadise]

There's no comparison of boomers (any definition) with jews. The very strong comparison is between anti-"boomer" sentiment and antisemitism. It is the same trait in human nature manifesting itself.

No it's not. That is an extremely sensationalist argument, even for the HPC forum.

Baby boomers are 35% of the UK population, more like c.42% of the electrorate.

Jews in 1930s Germany were less than 1% of the population.

One was attacking a minority based on race and religious belief leading to an attempted genocide.

One is a growing realisation that the largest cohort of the electroate continue to vote for their own unsustainable and selfish interests. No mass killings, lynchings been witnessed yet.

[Bugger BTL]

The comparison with jews is ridiculous - next up, the comparison of the younger generations to the nazis. Nazis with iPads.

Perfection.

[sPinwheel]

NaziPads.