Boomers have their hand out again!!!

[kzb]

On 13/03/2024 at 18:08, Unmoderated said:

Getting into immigration is a prickly one. It's also a deflection.

It's not a deflection.  I rapidly increasing population increases the demand for housing.  You couldn't have HPI without demand.  It's economics 101 really.

On 13/03/2024 at 18:08, Unmoderated said:

you'll have trouble seeing a doctor or a dentist.

There's never been more trouble about seeing a doctor, and particularly a dentist.

On 13/03/2024 at 18:08, Unmoderated said:

I'd also challenge you to provide any evidence that the over 65 population in London is lower today than 40 years ago. I don't think it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London#/media/File:London_population_pyramid_from_2001_to_2020.gif

If you watch that, the age 65 population appears more or less constant, but the number of younger people has increased enormously.  Rest of the country, the percentage of over 65's has increased but in London it looks like it has decreased.

Anyhow, the white flight from London is well known.  Most of the retired boomers went to Essex didn't they ?

 

 

[Unmoderated]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

It's not a deflection.  I rapidly increasing population increases the demand for housing.  You couldn't have HPI without demand.  It's economics 101 really.

There's never been more trouble about seeing a doctor, and particularly a dentist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London#/media/File:London_population_pyramid_from_2001_to_2020.gif

If you watch that, the age 65 population appears more or less constant, but the number of younger people has increased enormously.  Rest of the country, the percentage of over 65's has increased but in London it looks like it has decreased.

Anyhow, the white flight from London is well known.  Most of the retired boomers went to Essex didn't they ?

It is a deflection, we're talking about tax rates across age groups and now it's immigrants fault house prices are high? As a group are they all receiving money from the public purse to keep them housed?

Immigrants aren't the only source of demand either. Granted it has an impact, but that's something else. 

Never been more trouble seeing a doctor? I refer you to the dumb AF tax regime and most GPs working 3 days a week as a consequence. Why wouldn't they lol? NHS relies heavily on immigration. Without it the NHS is totally done. Roughly one fifth of NHS staff are foreign nationals (not even foreign born and settled her, but have foreign nationality). 

I watch it and I see the over 65 population increasing. Let's find some data? I can't easily but then I didn't make the assertion. 

White or brown doesn't matter when it comes to ages.

Not sure where the top place for Londoners is when they leave tbh. I do know that Dave Gorman (very funny guy) moved form London to Bournemouth and trolled people on Twitter for saying he'd moved to a retirement village. He demonstrated the borough he'd moved from had more older people and a higher % of them too. Would recommend his show. 

[kzb]

12 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Not sure where the top place for Londoners is when they leave tbh. I do know that Dave Gorman (very funny guy) moved form London to Bournemouth and trolled people on Twitter for saying he'd moved to a retirement village. He demonstrated the borough he'd moved from had more older people and a higher % of them too. Would recommend his show. 

Yes I think Dave Gorman must be very funny if he thinks that.

I don't have time to work out definitive stats but I can tell you that these are the median ages in 2021:

Gtr London  35.9

Bournemouth unitary authority 42.6

London has the lowest median age of any English region.  The median age of the SW region is he highest in England (44.1).

As an absolute number there will be more pensioners in London than Bournemouth.  The populations are 8.8 million and 400,000 respectively so it is inevitable.

As a percentage though, I strongly doubt it.  The median age is 6.7 years higher in Bournemouth.

[winkie]

Londoners amongst other places move to Norfolk, Suffolk......Southend innit.

[kzb]

5 minutes ago, winkie said:

Londoners amongst other places move to Norfolk, Suffolk......Southend innit.

Well yes, this is what I am saying.  The flight of the "indigenous" London population is well known.

A large percentage of retired boomers have in fact moved out, exactly like our friend wants. 

But the problem is they've been (more than) replaced by foreigners and somehow those foreigners can outcompete Millennials on here when it comes to obtaining accommodation in London.  I suppose it is because they are all doctors and dentists.

Also, it is standard practice to complain about boomers hogging all the housing, even though they've moved out, but it is forbidden to complain about their actual competition for housing.

[Nick Cash]

16 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Not sure where the top place for Londoners is when they leave tbh. I do know that Dave Gorman (very funny guy) moved form London to Bournemouth and trolled people on Twitter for saying he'd moved to a retirement village. He demonstrated the borough he'd moved from had more older people and a higher % of them too. Would recommend his show. 

Dave Gorman now compiles cryptic crosswords for The Telegraph. That’s what happens when you leave a thriving metropolis and go to live on the other side of nowhere.

We do the Saturday prize crossword in the Telegraph. Badly. We barely get halfway through. Which might be the gin or the lack of gin.

[kzb]

@Unmoderated @winkie

I've now had time to play about in Excel with the population figures (from 2021).

I've summed the over 65 populations for each area, and done the same for the  less than or equal to 65 population.  I've then divided the >65 population by the <=65 population to obtain the ratio of over 65's to the rest of the population.

The top ten, ranked with the lowest ratio of pensioners to others first,  looks like this:

Rank	Area			>65	<65	ratio
1	Tower Hamlets			16192	294667	0.0550
2	Newham			23303	325158	0.0717
3	Hackney			18936	239238	0.0792
4	Southwark			23926	280377	0.0853
5	Lambeth			25328	289991	0.0873
6	Barking and Dagenham			17707	199411	0.0888
7	Islington			18946	196319	0.0965
8	Manchester			48777	497271	0.0981
9	Lewisham			26659	270964	0.0984
10	Wandsworth			29623	296740	0.0998

Further down we have

22

LONDON

(REGION)

981618

7746185

0.1267

278

Bournemouth

82623

313250

0.2638

The only non-London area in the top 10 is Manchester.

The ratio of >65's to others in Bournemouth (unitary authority) is more than double that of Gtr London.

So yes, Dave Gorman must be very funny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15 by kzb

[Unmoderated]

On 15/03/2024 at 17:28, kzb said:

@Unmoderated @winkie

I've now had time to play about in Excel with the population figures (from 2021).

I've summed the over 65 populations for each area, and done the same for the  less than or equal to 65 population.  I've then divided the >65 population by the <=65 population to obtain the ratio of over 65's to the rest of the population.

The top ten, ranked with the lowest ratio of pensioners to others first,  looks like this:

Rank	Area			>65	<65	ratio
1	Tower Hamlets			16192	294667	0.0550
2	Newham			23303	325158	0.0717
3	Hackney			18936	239238	0.0792
4	Southwark			23926	280377	0.0853
5	Lambeth			25328	289991	0.0873
6	Barking and Dagenham			17707	199411	0.0888
7	Islington			18946	196319	0.0965
8	Manchester			48777	497271	0.0981
9	Lewisham			26659	270964	0.0984
10	Wandsworth			29623	296740	0.0998

Further down we have

22

LONDON

(REGION)

981618

7746185

0.1267

278

Bournemouth

82623

313250

0.2638

The only non-London area in the top 10 is Manchester.

The ratio of >65's to others in Bournemouth (unitary authority) is more than double that of Gtr London.

So yes, Dave Gorman must be very funny.

Interesting.

I was at the show and saw him deconstruct the 'God's waiting room' point. I didn' verfiy the stats. In fairness, it might have been more to do with average ages - Bournmeouth likely has more families which would pull the average down.

https://theartsdesk.com/node/82310/view

Been looking online for ten or so minutes but I cannot find the text around it - just reeferences that he said something to debunk it. 

He was in East London before moving so it might have been a comparison between his old London Borough and Bournmouth. Were there any London Borough's with a higher ratio than B'mouth?

[kzb]

5 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Were there any London Borough's with a higher ratio than B'mouth?

No

1Tower HamletsLondon Borough0.0550

2NewhamLondon Borough0.0717

3HackneyLondon Borough0.0792

4SouthwarkLondon Borough0.0853

5LambethLondon Borough0.0873

6Barking and DagenhamLondon Borough0.0888

7IslingtonLondon Borough0.0965

8LewishamLondon Borough0.0984

9WandsworthLondon Borough0.0998

10Waltham ForestLondon Borough0.1067

11Hammersmith and FulhamLondon Borough0.1086

12GreenwichLondon Borough0.1093

13HaringeyLondon Borough0.1100

14BrentLondon Borough0.1239

15HounslowLondon Borough0.1260

16CamdenLondon Borough0.1263

17WestminsterLondon Borough0.1295

18EalingLondon Borough0.1299

19RedbridgeLondon Borough0.1310

20MertonLondon Borough0.1357

21HillingdonLondon Borough0.1470

22CroydonLondon Borough0.1485

23EnfieldLondon Borough0.1493

24City of LondonLondon Borough0.1552

25Kensington and ChelseaLondon Borough0.1583

26BarnetLondon Borough0.1601

27Kingston upon ThamesLondon Borough0.1611

28SuttonLondon Borough0.1687

29HarrowLondon Borough0.1721

30Richmond upon ThamesLondon Borough0.1828

31BexleyLondon Borough0.1884

32HaveringLondon Borough0.2027

33BromleyLondon Borough0.2036

So even Bromley has a lower ratio than Bournemouth (0.2638)

5 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

He was in East London before moving so it might have been a comparison between his old London Borough and Bournmouth.

Hint:  the most reliable information, and real world viewpoint, probably doesn't come from comedians.  If you notice, they seem to have a lot of problems in real life.

[winkie]

On 15/03/2024 at 12:00, kzb said:

Well yes, this is what I am saying.  The flight of the "indigenous" London population is well known.

A large percentage of retired boomers have in fact moved out, exactly like our friend wants. 

But the problem is they've been (more than) replaced by foreigners and somehow those foreigners can outcompete Millennials on here when it comes to obtaining accommodation in London.  I suppose it is because they are all doctors and dentists.

Also, it is standard practice to complain about boomers hogging all the housing, even though they've moved out, but it is forbidden to complain about their actual competition for housing.

More homes could be required as we have more single people, fewer marriages......older people had more kids then that all need housing.....more housing required that can be bought on one main wage ie max 5 times gross annual income, average wage £35k in London.....the figures don't add up anymore.....London is full of global money laundering, property bought by very wealthy foreigners many of who do not live here......so could be said it is more the foreign money pushing up housing then foreign people living here

Asset rich income poor for large sections of retired people also......they move for a better quality of life elsewhere and can release equity to top up low state pensions and perhaps help children......many pensioners did not work for the state or big corporations that offered index linked final salary DB pensions......very many if they saved towards a private pension might only collect £200 or £300 a month that is if an annuity......or have less than £100,000 in a unguaranteed pot to live from for life....... inequalities in pensioners as wide as for the rest of the population.....the gap just getting wider......once billions of inheritance or potential inheritance is being spent on living, because our cost of living is so high, the money then will be gone forever.....

[kzb]

5 hours ago, winkie said:

average wage £35k in London.....the figures don't add up anymore.

The median is nearly £45k in London.  The chief complainers about boomers on here are higher rate tax payers.

5 hours ago, winkie said:

.London is full of global money laundering, property bought by very wealthy foreigners many of who do not live here......so could be said it is more the foreign money pushing up housing then foreign people living here

The suspicion is, London housing is bought up by foreign concerns and rented out to poor immigrants.  The only way the immigrants can afford the rents is by claiming benefits, paid for by UK taxpayers.  The taxpayer is therefore subsidising the ownership of property by foreigners and the inflated values are maintained by taxpayer subsidy.  This also has the effect of excluding the aboriginal population because they don't want to live like that.

That is the area that really needs examining IMHO.  Instead, all they can do is broadcast hate about the older generation.  It's almost as if they have been manipulated into doing so, to deflect from the real causes.

[Unmoderated]

On 17/03/2024 at 02:19, kzb said:

No

1Tower HamletsLondon Borough0.0550

2NewhamLondon Borough0.0717

3HackneyLondon Borough0.0792

4SouthwarkLondon Borough0.0853

5LambethLondon Borough0.0873

6Barking and DagenhamLondon Borough0.0888

7IslingtonLondon Borough0.0965

8LewishamLondon Borough0.0984

9WandsworthLondon Borough0.0998

10Waltham ForestLondon Borough0.1067

11Hammersmith and FulhamLondon Borough0.1086

12GreenwichLondon Borough0.1093

13HaringeyLondon Borough0.1100

14BrentLondon Borough0.1239

15HounslowLondon Borough0.1260

16CamdenLondon Borough0.1263

17WestminsterLondon Borough0.1295

18EalingLondon Borough0.1299

19RedbridgeLondon Borough0.1310

20MertonLondon Borough0.1357

21HillingdonLondon Borough0.1470

22CroydonLondon Borough0.1485

23EnfieldLondon Borough0.1493

24City of LondonLondon Borough0.1552

25Kensington and ChelseaLondon Borough0.1583

26BarnetLondon Borough0.1601

27Kingston upon ThamesLondon Borough0.1611

28SuttonLondon Borough0.1687

29HarrowLondon Borough0.1721

30Richmond upon ThamesLondon Borough0.1828

31BexleyLondon Borough0.1884

32HaveringLondon Borough0.2027

33BromleyLondon Borough0.2036

So even Bromley has a lower ratio than Bournemouth (0.2638)

Hint:  the most reliable information, and real world viewpoint, probably doesn't come from comedians.  If you notice, they seem to have a lot of problems in real life.

Interesting.

If you know Dave Gorman you'll know he's a comedian that uses real world data to make jokes. Worth a look. 

All I can think is it was then the median or mean age. 

[Unmoderated]

22 hours ago, kzb said:

The median is nearly £45k in London.  The chief complainers about boomers on here are higher rate tax payers.

The suspicion is, London housing is bought up by foreign concerns and rented out to poor immigrants.  The only way the immigrants can afford the rents is by claiming benefits, paid for by UK taxpayers.  The taxpayer is therefore subsidising the ownership of property by foreigners and the inflated values are maintained by taxpayer subsidy.  This also has the effect of excluding the aboriginal population because they don't want to live like that.

That is the area that really needs examining IMHO.  Instead, all they can do is broadcast hate about the older generation.  It's almost as if they have been manipulated into doing so, to deflect from the real causes.

Without immigration the population woudl be aging for more rapidly and the unfunded entitlements wouldn't be paid for, the NHS would be even shorter staffed and the young and most able would probably up sticks and move to somewhere they're appreciated and given a better life.

I don't complain about Boomers (as a group), I complain about young people not voting.

Also note that it's higher rate tax payers funding the majority of the excess of the state here. Top 10% of income tax payers are paying 60% of all income tax. Without them you've got pretty much nothing. 

The way you frame it is that all immigrants are being subsidised by the state? The irony!

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

All I can think is it was then the median or mean age.

We've already seen that the median age in London is lower than any other region, and lower than Bournemouth.

Given the large difference in the percentage of pensioners, I suspect very strongly that the arithmetic mean age will be lower in London also.

Here's a pretend Dave Gorman analysis that I just thought of.  There is an inverse relationship between house prices and percentage of boomers in the population.  The lower the percentage of boomers, the higher the house price, and vice-versa.

I could prove that if I have time.  It's almost inevitably true given the demographics of London.  Boomers lower the house price.

 

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

Without immigration the population woudl be aging for more rapidly and the unfunded entitlements wouldn't be paid for, the NHS would be even shorter staffed

Granted that is all true.  But shouldn't we be asking why our own people are not breeding fast enough, and why we can't train enough staff for the NHS ourselves?

(Also bear in mind the NHS has a defined-benefit unfunded pension scheme.  Every immigrant in the NHS is building up entitlement to both the state pension and the NHS pension, both of which will be paid for by future generations.  If they go "back home" to retire, that money is being spent abroad and not supporting the economy here in the UK.)

Anyhow what I was discussing is how the retired boomers have actually left London to a large extent.  That is what all the demographics were about.  A large number of London properties have been vacated by boomers and put on the market.  But they have not been bought by British millennials, they have been outcompeted somehow and now houses are owned by rich landlords and foreign concerns. 

The properties they bought off the boomers are being rented out to immigrants who could not afford the rent without being subsidised by benefits.  Those benefits are thus supporting high house prices and acting to exclude young Brits from London.  Perhaps they don't want to get caught up in the benefits system, I know I wouldn't.  This couldn't have happened without continuing high demand from immigration.  Other things have also been necessary for it to happen of course, not just immigration, but the fact is it couldn't have happened without the immigration.

 

2 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

I don't complain about Boomers (as a group), I complain about young people not voting.

No, you complain about boomers as a group, just like many on here.

Do you honestly believe voting changes anything?

2 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Also note that it's higher rate tax payers funding the majority of the excess of the state here. Top 10% of income tax payers are paying 60% of all income tax. Without them you've got pretty much nothing. 

Yes I knew that already.  It's progressive taxation and most people outside of the Far Right of the Tory party support it.

The funny thing is, you complain about this, but redistribution is an absolute cornerstone of Labour and other left wing groups.  The only people against it would be some Thatcherite free-marketeers of the type we despise so much on here.  So by complaining about progressive taxation you are actually very right-wing.

[Unmoderated]

On 18/03/2024 at 12:32, kzb said:

We've already seen that the median age in London is lower than any other region, and lower than Bournemouth.

Given the large difference in the percentage of pensioners, I suspect very strongly that the arithmetic mean age will be lower in London also.

Here's a pretend Dave Gorman analysis that I just thought of.  There is an inverse relationship between house prices and percentage of boomers in the population.  The lower the percentage of boomers, the higher the house price, and vice-versa.

I could prove that if I have time.  It's almost inevitably true given the demographics of London.  Boomers lower the house price.

 

Love a tail wagging dog analysis. 

I would imagine the boomers have cashed in and downsized. It's what I'd do. 

Pretty annoyed with Dave Gorman now. The section of his show where he did this was really good. Seems it was nonsense now .

[onlooker]

1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

Pretty annoyed with Dave Gorman now. The section of his show where he did this was really good. Seems it was nonsense now .

I guess he is another lying leftie. I can't believe how long his Wikipedia entry is, he must have influential friends. I had never heard of him before.

[Unmoderated]

On 18/03/2024 at 13:14, kzb said:

Granted that is all true.  But shouldn't we be asking why our own people are not breeding fast enough, and why we can't train enough staff for the NHS ourselves?

(Also bear in mind the NHS has a defined-benefit unfunded pension scheme.  Every immigrant in the NHS is building up entitlement to both the state pension and the NHS pension, both of which will be paid for by future generations.  If they go "back home" to retire, that money is being spent abroad and not supporting the economy here in the UK.)

Anyhow what I was discussing is how the retired boomers have actually left London to a large extent.  That is what all the demographics were about.  A large number of London properties have been vacated by boomers and put on the market.  But they have not been bought by British millennials, they have been outcompeted somehow and now houses are owned by rich landlords and foreign concerns. 

The properties they bought off the boomers are being rented out to immigrants who could not afford the rent without being subsidised by benefits.  Those benefits are thus supporting high house prices and acting to exclude young Brits from London.  Perhaps they don't want to get caught up in the benefits system, I know I wouldn't.  This couldn't have happened without continuing high demand from immigration.  Other things have also been necessary for it to happen of course, not just immigration, but the fact is it couldn't have happened without the immigration.

 

No, you complain about boomers as a group, just like many on here.

Do you honestly believe voting changes anything?

Yes I knew that already.  It's progressive taxation and most people outside of the Far Right of the Tory party support it.

The funny thing is, you complain about this, but redistribution is an absolute cornerstone of Labour and other left wing groups.  The only people against it would be some Thatcherite free-marketeers of the type we despise so much on here.  So by complaining about progressive taxation you are actually very right-wing.

Not having kids (or at least the middle classes who used to produce doctors etc) because there's a huge cost to having them today. Two incomes needed to buy a family home and then one income either sacrificed to stay at home and raise them, or spent on childcare. 

NHS isn't set up correctly, it needs massive funding reform. It's a second rate (at best) health service. 

People can retire where they like. Immigrants coming here and retiring elsewhere is still better than someone born here, educated here, working here and then retiring overseas (we don't have to educate immigrants). 

Not sure we can say that about London properties. While you've clearly demonstrated a lower retiree population lives there than in Bournemouth hasn't that always been the case? London's a transient city. Many of my friends who moved there straight from uni have moved out to settle down and start families. 

I think that's a fairly broad statement about immigrants. Many can and do stand on their own two feet. I have many colleagues and friends who aren't born here, earn very good salaries and own their own homes. 

 

I don't blame Boomers is what I said? As a group they're the richest cohort and enjoy tax breaks that youngsters (poorer) do not. 

It doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote. If you disagree do you think pensioners enjoy such generosity because it's the 'right' thing to do, or because they vote en masse? Who else in society gets anything like the benefits package afforded to retirees? 

Young don't vote in big enough numbers and so get screwed over (imho). Not talking about me here, I'm talking about people in there early 20s. 

I support progressive taxation. You're still not getting that a marginal rate of 62% from £100K to £125K which then FALLS to 47% isn't progressive. It's regressive!

I don't complain about wealth redistribution when it's reducing wealth inequality. Tell me, how is taxing young people with less wealth at higher rates than old people with lots of wealth reducing wealth inequality? 

You're hopeless at trying to project me as right-wing. Would you consider the IFS a right wing institution? They're against stupid marginal rates too. 

I think, rather, you're guilty of supporting regressive taxation? You seem to be fine with lower tax rates for wealthier people and the highest tax rate for people who are not the highest earners? By your very own logic you're very right wing?  

[kzb]

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

I would imagine the boomers have cashed in and downsized. It's what I'd do. 

The figures do indeed imply this has been happening, and on a large scale.  That is what I have been telling you all this time.

In fact it will be possible to calculate a "London boomer deficit" from the population demographics figures.  If I get time I might do that.

So there you have it, a significant fraction of retired boomers have indeed got out of your way and retired outside London.  They are not all sat in their London mansions laughing at all the poor millennials outside like you imagined.

But the question now is, given the scale of boomer flight from London, why have house prices not come down as a result?  What is propping up demand do you think ?

 

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Pretty annoyed with Dave Gorman now. The section of his show where he did this was really good. Seems it was nonsense now

You do realise he's a comedian ?

Anyhow if you torture data enough you can prove almost anything.  See it all the time these days, that minimum alcohol unit price was a good example.

[winkie]

On 15/03/2024 at 12:00, kzb said:

Well yes, this is what I am saying.  The flight of the "indigenous" London population is well known.

A large percentage of retired boomers have in fact moved out, exactly like our friend wants. 

But the problem is they've been (more than) replaced by foreigners and somehow those foreigners can outcompete Millennials on here when it comes to obtaining accommodation in London.  I suppose it is because they are all doctors and dentists.

Also, it is standard practice to complain about boomers hogging all the housing, even though they've moved out, but it is forbidden to complain about their actual competition for housing.

News today......chard, the leafy green vegetable.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chard-somerset-house-sales-increase-double-98s573ghl

[Nick Cash]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-68625902
 

Boomers getting everything they desire. Or not. 
 

Who would begrudge them their windfall?

[Bruce Banner]

7 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-68625902

Boomers getting everything they desire. Or not.

Who would begrudge them their windfall?

Not me! The wife would have my guts for garters.

[winkie]

16 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-68625902
 

Boomers getting everything they desire. Or not. 
 

Who would begrudge them their windfall?

Nobody should, and the best of luck and health to them, to everyone whatever age they are.

[Unmoderated]

53 minutes ago, kzb said:

The figures do indeed imply this has been happening, and on a large scale.  That is what I have been telling you all this time.

In fact it will be possible to calculate a "London boomer deficit" from the population demographics figures.  If I get time I might do that.

So there you have it, a significant fraction of retired boomers have indeed got out of your way and retired outside London.  They are not all sat in their London mansions laughing at all the poor millennials outside like you imagined.

But the question now is, given the scale of boomer flight from London, why have house prices not come down as a result?  What is propping up demand do you think ?

 

You do realise he's a comedian ?

Anyhow if you torture data enough you can prove almost anything.  See it all the time these days, that minimum alcohol unit price was a good example.

Do the figures imply that? We'd have to see how those ratios have changed over time? 

If you've posted anything showing the boomer flight then I've missed it, but all I saw were ratios of over 65s to under 65s. From experience most people go to London young, get it out of their system and then move out having got trained up and made some good contacts.

I didn't imagine they were all laughing at poor millennials lol. I can confirm though they are quite happy in their very large houses in my home town. Most aren't laughing at younger people. Many feel bad for them and sympathise. Obviously that doesn't extend quite as far as having their benefits reigned in or paying the same levels of tax but it's the thought that counts isn't it.

You'd have to admit that you can surely see why there's a growing divide between the generations? Gen Z working, never being able to own and paying a higher marginal rate of tax than the wealthiest in society. Seems like a big exception. 

 

Data is data. Whatever is presented is only part of the picture. My current employer is a multinational data analytics company. 

Yeah, you see it with the alcohol consumption J curve, covid jabs, etc. Both sides insisting they're right because they're convinced they are. Some, though, tend to form an opinion and then run around finding data to collaborate it.

[kzb]

3 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Do the figures imply that? We'd have to see how those ratios have changed over time? 

It doesn't change the argument whether the ratio has changed over time or not.  The fact remains that retired boomers have got out of London, and the current figures show that.  The only other alternative is that they all died, which can't be true because life expectancy in London is rather high.  Even so, dying still makes room for the next generation.

It's not relevant whether this has always happened or not.  The fact is it has happened with the current generation of retirees and they have made room for the next generation.  Or they would have, if the next generation hadn't had to compete with foreigners.