"debts Will Turn Family Homes Into Anthills"

[Zaranna]

Debts will turn family homes into 'anthills'

By Rosie Murray-West

(Filed: 24/03/2006)

Rising debts and poor pensions will lead to a new kind of "anthill" family - with many generations living and working together - a report said yesterday.

"Anthill" households will lead to parents and grown-up children pooling mortgages, bills and even pensions so that everyone can retire with a comfortable income.

The report, by trend forecasters The Future Laboratory, suggests that families will deal with the pensions crisis by pooling their resources into "fractional pensions" - which would allow families to pay collectively into one pot and then benefit from larger rewards.

"As 30-somethings fail to invest in pensions and an ageing population spends its children's inheritance, we are seeing families moving back in with each other and sharing the cost of home and mortgage," the report said.

There is already evidence that, as house prices rise, children are delaying moving out of their parents' homes and some are also being forced to move back in after years of independence.

Louise McRae, from Chelmsford, is a member of one of these new families. She is 28 and has returned to her parents' home while she works in the voluntary sector, which should help her to get a good full-time job. She does not pay any rent, but helps out in the house.

"My parents are lovely but it's difficult not to regress to being a teenager," she said. However, she says she is scared by rising house prices and the fact that she does not own her own home.

"I am approaching 30 and really want to get settled. But living in south-east England it just isn't possible."

The report said that current economic and social conditions would create new groups of people including "elder-preneurs", who would start businesses late in life because they are concerned about their lack of savings.

Older people are already responsible for 50 per cent more business start-ups than they were 10 years ago and the trend is likely to continue.

Another new group will be the "bridge-careerists", who are trying to find ways to avoid giving up work in their 60s, finding new careers to work into their 70s.

For younger age groups, though, the future looks less rosy. A new group for whom a name has been coined is the FUDantes, where FUD stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt. They are in their 20s, and Twixters in their 30s.

"FUDantes are in their mid-20s and find the mass of choices they face bewildering now they have been ejected from the structures and paths laid out by decades of education," the report says.

"These new graduates can no longer routinely expect jobs of the calibre obtained by graduates of 30 years ago".

Twixters - so-called because they are apparently betwixt one lifestyle and another - still live with their parents, even though they are in their 30s. "They have a lax attitude towards spending money and the accrual of debt. They believe that the function of money is primarily the purchase of leisure and consumer goods, not buying necessities or saving for the future," the report says.

Jeremy Ward, head of pensions marketing at Friends Provident, who commissioned the report, said: "The report uncovers people creating new strategies to deal with how and when they retire. But it also uncovers worrying evidence that many people in their 20s and 30s have no idea how and when to start saving for their futures."

For younger age groups, though, the future looks less rosy. A new group for whom a name has been coined is the FUDantes, where FUD stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt. They are in their 20s, and Twixters in their 30s.

"FUDantes are in their mid-20s and find the mass of choices they face bewildering now they have been ejected from the structures and paths laid out by decades of education," the report says.

"These new graduates can no longer routinely expect jobs of the calibre obtained by graduates of 30 years ago".

I think this is the really important part - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. How many here are FUDantes or Twixters....?

Edited March 24, 2006 by Zaranna

[DoubleBubbleTrouble]

Doesn't this call into question the fundamental assumption of the bricks and mortar brigade... that demand for houses will always go up.

[SarahBell]

As bills go up it makes sense to share homes more.

[OnlyMe]

Doesn't this call into question the fundamental assumption of the bricks and mortar brigade... that demand for houses will always go up.

Never mind that - this would mark the end of of debt driven consumption economics. Roasted itself on its own spit.

[FrozenOut]

There is a serious undertone to that article that you are a failure or gutless if you don't go out in to the world and buy a house. :angry:

Level the playing field and then we'll see who's gutless!

[MarkG]

Rising debts and poor pensions will lead to a new kind of "anthill" family - with many generations living and working together - a report said yesterday.

What's new about that? That's how many people lived for centuries.

The difference, of course, is that we have such a glut of properties these days that if all the 20-somethings moved back in with their parents prices would drop so far that they could all easily afford to buy a house (or, at least, an 'executive apartment') of their own.

[right_freds_dead]

naw. its more likley to crash/correct.

like it always does.

this is a part VI hair brained housing hope scheme.

"ohh, yes. property will be oohh so expensive by 2010 they will all crowd in every conceivable inch of space"

not likely. dream on trend forecasters 'The Future Laboratory'.

bad future laboratory.

[Biriani]

The report, by trend forecasters The Future Laboratory, suggests that families will deal with the pensions crisis by pooling their resources into "fractional pensions" - which would allow families to pay collectively into one pot and then benefit from larger rewards.

I am curious about this part.

I'm supposed to share a pension pot with my parents now, am I? Does that imply that their pension is insufficient and I need to contribute to their pensions directly (in exchange for rent-free housing perhaps?) What happens to my part of the communal pot if they end up living longer and consuming more of it?

And in turn, if my pension contributions are going to pay for their retirement and longevity, who is going to pay for my pension?

Or are my parents offering to share their good fortune with me and contribute to my meagre pension prospects?

I don't understand how this can work as a scheme. Can anyone enlighten me?

[OnlyMe]

I am curious about this part.

I'm supposed to share a pension pot with my parents now, am I? Does that imply that their pension is insufficient and I need to contribute to their pensions directly (in exchange for rent-free housing perhaps?) What happens to my part of the communal pot if they end up living longer and consuming more of it?

Basically everybody pi$$ing in teh same pot, it is actually all a bit irrelevant who pi$$ses when and where, just that none of the parties can afford their own pot any more.

Whichever way round it is all it does is highlight that the economic dream is turning into a bit of a nightmare.

[MarkG]

just that none of the parties can afford their own pot any more.

Um, if five people can't afford to save for retirement individually, how will they magically become able to afford it together?

[right_freds_dead]

how will they magically become able to afford it together?

dont you believe in miracles ?

[laurejon]

I think the only solution is to pool the entire nations pension pot, in a nationalisation programme and then share it out equally amongst everyone.

That way, we could really have equality, and social justice.

Many people do not have a pension of their own, it might be becasue they are new immigrants of an elderly age, or that in their youth they spent a lot of time down the pub.

If the Government were really serious about redistributing the wealth of the nation, then pensions should be the first point of attack.

[befuddled]

I'm supposed to share a pension pot with my parents now, am I? Does that imply that their pension is insufficient and I need to contribute to their pensions directly (in exchange for rent-free housing perhaps?) What happens to my part of the communal pot if they end up living longer and consuming more of it?

I think Logan's Run had it right, mandatory euthanasia at the of 65 will sort things out.

[Property Dreamer]

I think Logan's Run had it right, mandatory euthanasia at the of 65 will sort things out.

I think Logan's Run was 30. However one Star Trek episode had everyone reaching 60 being ceremonially euthanased. I think any government that tried to bring in this policy wouldn't get re-elected?

[befuddled]

I think Logan's Run was 30. However one Star Trek episode had everyone reaching 60 being ceremonially euthanased. I think any government that tried to bring in this policy wouldn't get re-elected?

Yes, Logan's Run was 30, I'm not an extremist though....

As for re-election, how can any long-term solution be popularist when more than half the voting population is within 20 years of dying.

[MarkG]

I think any government that tried to bring in this policy wouldn't get re-elected?

That would probably depend on whether the policy also mandated twenty-something Jenny Agutters running around naked.

[BillyShears]

And in turn, if my pension contributions are going to pay for their retirement and longevity, who is going to pay for my pension?

I don't understand how this can work as a scheme. Can anyone enlighten me?

As in much earlier societies, your children will be your pension. If you have ten children, then the burden of looking after you is spread much wider. Time to phone your partner, go home, and start working on it.

Billy Shears

[The Masked Tulip]

Please do not take this the wrong way as the aim of this is not to blow my own trumpet but...

When I became ill last year and it then became obvious that it was as a result, in part, of myself looking after my elderly Mum by myself for the past 15 years one of the distrubing things that the Doctors and Nurses told me was that, today, they very rarely find elderly people with any family who even contact them let alone look after them.

We appear to live in a selfish Society where many younger generations appear to be like some parasite who lives off the Parent up until a point when they now simply move away, get on with their own lives and forget any sense of duty, obligation and family to their own parents.

It is tragic.

So, to see a huge turn around in our Society whereby we will begin living together again as 'families' just strikes me as impossibe. The genie is out of the can now and socially, economically, even culturally I cannot see us going back 50 years or so. This, after all, is the selfish 'me me' Society.

That would probably depend on whether the policy also mandated twenty-something Jenny Agutters running around naked.

Probably the coolest film ever made. She certainly looked cute in it and even cuter in 'Walkabout'. Any woman wondering what men want in a woman only need to watch either of these two films and observe Jenny Agutter.

[dunderhead]

If utility bills, energy costs, taxation, travel fares, etc continue to rise.. and we refuse to consider that house prices may fall.. then it's easy to make straight-line projections and say "this is the future".

It's an interesting talking point, nothing more IMO.

Newspapers love things like this.

Does anyone else think the papers will now be considering features like "Generation gap: could you live together as a family? Read how I fared when I moved back in with my folks for a month" ?

[Sisyphus]

Jenny Agutters running around naked.

mmmmm..... drools in a very Homer Simpson-like manner

[Zaranna]

one of the distrubing things that the Doctors and Nurses told me was that, today, they very rarely find elderly people with any family who even contact them let alone look after them.

We appear to live in a selfish Society where many younger generations appear to be like some parasite who lives off the Parent up until a point when they now simply move away, get on with their own lives and forget any sense of duty, obligation and family to their own parents.

And which "younger generations" would these be?

I'm 28: my parents aren't elderly. (They're middle-aged - early 50s). It's unlikely that most people below 35 have parents who are "elderly". Those generations with "elderly" parents (aged, say, 70+) are the generation of people who are CURRENTLY aged 40+ themselves. It's not the people in their 20s and 30s who are selfish. As the above article shows, many of them haven't even left their parents' nest yet.

So, what you really mean to say is that the BOOMER generation - the current 45-65 year olds who have the "elderly" parents - are selfish?

Right again