Telegraph: Ten Reasons Why I'm Looking Forwards To The House Price Crash

[LC1]

You also cannot blame turkeys for not voting for Christmas!

The 'fairest' thing to do would have been to recalculate pensions in light of changing demographics, to have made them as 'forecasts' only, based upon changing data. People would then at least have had some chance of making other provision to supplement the pension.

Reducing pensions overnight would be somewhat unethical, but continuing to honour unfunded promises also seems a bit iffy ethically, given that younger generations will never experience such state beneficence in their lifetimes.

[Automotive Engineer]

You also cannot blame turkeys for not voting for Christmas!

The 'fairest' thing to do would have been to recalculate pensions in light of changing demographics, to have made them as 'forecasts' only, based upon changing data. People would then at least have had some chance of making other provision to supplement the pension.

Reducing pensions overnight would be somewhat unethical, but continuing to honour unfunded promises also seems a bit iffy ethically, given that younger generations will never experience such state beneficence in their lifetimes.

This scenario is playing out in Spain right now.

It is a given that at current rates (of payouts) the Spanish pension system will be exhausted by 2018.

Let me say that again, in 2 years, Spanish pensions will collapse.

The demographics and precarious employment situation of Spain will not support the current pension system.

The EU want's Spain to cut it's pensions. Obviously they've done the numbers and don't want to bail out Spanish pensioners with everyone else's money.

Obviously no politician want's to touch this.

[pig]

Forget the pensions and the elderly for a moment.

It's the run up to 2008, starting in the 80's that needs addressing.

House-prices, general economics, politics, and received wisdom all have to change.

If it does crash let's not waste it.

[BlokeInDurham]

What I criticise are some young people think that their problems will be solved by destroying pensions for all. Young people need to start focusing on the real causes of why things are as they are. Blaming older generations because they benefitted from wealth distribution that meant that there was more to go around is not the answer, what is needed is to start focusing on changing wealth distribution back to how it was.

Destroying all pensions isn't an answer. What might be some sort of answer would be retrospectively downgrading over-optimistic pensions a generation promised themselves, then turned out later not to be sustainable. If investments go down as well as up, that's understandably disappointing but not a reason to put someone else on the hook for the difference between expectation and reality.

Wealth distribution might be an issue, but the intergenerational issue isn't related to the distribution of the wealth but it's source. If the country were an old country house over which a family had been stewards for centuries steadily growing and improving their circumstances such that generations could have increasingly better standards of living, then the Baby Boomer generation is to some degree the wayward drunk who gambles away the family fortune, indeed quite comfortably having enough money not to worry, but leaving on their death a wreck with a monstrous repair bill that their children have to sell to the National Trust. Were they a rich person? Undeniably. Could they afford the lifestyle? Yes. Did they deserve it? Now we're on more contentious ground.

It is noticable on a individual basis that while to previous generations leaving a legacy invoked a huge sense of pride, and even duty, it is much more common amongst the current crop of will-writers to intend to leave nothing, even take pride in doing so. People intend to personally make absolutely as much of their assets as they can before they shuffle off. Which is fine, admirable to some extent even. But what exactly are their assets? Legally of course, they own all the stuff that is theirs. But they inherited something from their parents (even the poorest with no individual assets inherit the efforts of previous generations through society). Was that theirs to exhaust? How much of the benefits you enjoy are actually earned and how much given you? Is it right to aim to spend the inherited part, passing on nothing yourself? The idea of stewardship, of being one of many to enjoy those benefits for a while, got lost to some degree with the Baby Boomers. It is somewhat disturbing since it's a crucial principle in even acknowledging something like environmental sustainability as a problem, let alone solving it! That individual process has played out on a generational basis too.

I doubt many begrudge people enjoying the fruits of their labour too much (envy exists, so I'm sure some might do a little!). The question that will really rile them in comparison though is whether or not those fruits are actually are entirely of your labour, or are they to some degree stolen from your parents or your children?

(If you break the "chain of stewardship" and live life high on the hog by selling off the family silver, it's definitely a theft. Whether the theft is from the previous or the following generation is somewhat semantic.)