Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
researchmug

The Baby Boomer Factor?

Recommended Posts

I have nothing against baby boomers, but their presence through the past 60 years has definitely affected our country, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively

I hope I'm right in thinking that the majority of these spectacular property gains over the past 40 years have been made by the baby boomers who bought in vast numbers when the mortgage market first opened up in the seventies and beyond. A disproportionate percentage of the population are sitting on what they had assumed until now were comfy nest eggs.

Suddenly they can't get the sums they had expected and that world cruise isn't looking so likely.

Is it possible that the stand off between buyers and sellers is partly because the sellers don't have mortgages and are willing to wait another 5 years until the prices possibly rise again?

With the first time buyers at one end of the market unable to buy and the middle aged sellers at the other end of the market unwilling to sell the home they bought for 10000 in 1970 for less than 500000 now, surely there's no sign that things will change in the short term?

If you drive around the village I've just moved from you will see rows of huge 5 bedroom houses, each with only one or two people living in them. Baby boomers who bought 30 year ago when property was cheap. At the other end of the village is a seventies development of modern houses where younger families are squeezed into tiny (but expensive) little boxes in order to get the kids into a decent school. There's definitely something wrong there and I'm wondering how the price falls will affect both these types?

will people coming up to retirement eventually be forced to sell their large houses in one big glut when heating them becomes too expensive even on a reasonable pension. Perhaps the meteoric rise in council tax will force them out. Perhaps it'll make space for younger families or perhaps the sudden glut of large properties on the market (in need of modernisation) will make the property market yet worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for a lot of boomers is they wanted the cruises and stuff when they retire, but didn't want to save for a pensions and thought they could make their fortune with property. Now they will find themselves stuffed, they should have tried to downsize a few years ago, and they will definitely find it hard to keep their houses running with rising fuel costs etc...

Hell, loads of boomers still have mortgages to pay even though they are just a few years from retirement, which doesn't bode well for them. Their state pension entitlement is going to get even worse because people of my age don't want to pay for the greedy b*stards any more so they will have to sell up and downsize. I can't see it being a problem though as the only reasonably priced homes in my area are retirement flats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
will people coming up to retirement eventually be forced to sell their large houses in one big glut when heating them becomes too expensive even on a reasonable pension. Perhaps the meteoric rise in council tax will force them out. Perhaps it'll make space for younger families or perhaps the sudden glut of large properties on the market (in need of modernisation) will make the property market yet worse.

Right on both counts IMO, but there is an additional factor in realtion to council tax. The cost of caring for an increasing number of elderly is already causing massive strain on Local Government finances.

So I guesse councils & the govt. have three choices moving forward:

1) Increase council tax

2) Increase means testing for care of the elederly

3) Cut expensive 'home care' for the elderly

Whichever way they choose, boomers will be forced out of their homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell, loads of boomers still have mortgages to pay even though they are just a few years from retirement

Most Baby Boomers won't be retiring for 20 - 25 years. The main 'baby boom' was between 1955 and 1975.

Baby_Boomers.gif

I do , however, know some people who are retiring this year. They sold off their 4-house BTL portfolio 2 years ago...and they're not going on a cruise!

post-11506-1216395294_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Baby Boomers won't be retiring for 20 - 25 years. The main 'baby boom' was between 1955 and 1975.

Baby_Boomers.gif

I do , however, know some people who are retiring this year. They sold off their 4-house BTL portfolio 2 years ago...and they're not going on a cruise!

Aww crap. You mean i'll have to put up with them for even longer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Baby Boomers won't be retiring for 20 - 25 years. The main 'baby boom' was between 1955 and 1975.

Baby_Boomers.gif

I do , however, know some people who are retiring this year. They sold off their 4-house BTL portfolio 2 years ago...and they're not going on a cruise!

Whatever the figures show, the boomer definition used by almost all sources I've ever read doesn't normally stretch past the early 60's.

From Wiki:

If the gross number of births were the indicator, births began to decline from the peak in 1957 (4,300,000), but fluctuated or did not decline by much more than 40,000 (1959-1960) to 60,000 (1962-1963) until a sharp decline from 1964 (4,027,490) to 1965 (3,760,358). This sharp decline resulted from millions of women using birth control pills, which were introduced in 1960 in the U.S., and widely used by 1964.[4] This makes 1965 a good year to mark the end of the baby boom in the U.S.[5] However, it is important to note that 1964 is a nationwide average. Although it is true that 1946 marks the beginning of the boom nationwide, the end of the boom (the year of baseline birthrates returning to pre-war levels) on a state-by-state basis varied a great deal spanning throughout the 1960s.

While 1945-1965 reflect the post-World War II demographic boom in births, there is a growing consensus among generational experts that two distinct cultural generations occupy these years. The conceptualization that has gained the most public acceptance is that of a 1942-1953 Baby Boom Generation, followed by a 1954-1965 Generation Jones. Boomers and Jonesers had dramatically different formative experiences which gave rise to dramatically different collective personalities. Other monikers have been sometimes used to describe the younger cohort, like "Trailing Edge Boomers", "Late Boomers", and "Shadow Boomers". In his book Boomer Nation, Steve Gillon states that the baby boom began in 1946 and ends in 1960, but he divides Baby Boomers into two groups: Boomers, born between 1945 and 1957; and Shadow Boomers born between 1958 and 1964.[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that Wiki stuff is about the USA. The graph - and this website - are UK-based. And what we're talking about here is numbers of people in our population, and their effect on house prices. Clearly, for us, the main population boom was between 1955 and 1975. The big problem will be in about 25 years time, when lots of the 'real' baby boomers want to downsize - property crash Mk2?!

Edited by greenalien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read recently that in 2007 the absolute numbers of births in the US passed the peak baby boom year of 1957 for the first time.

Seems like the current procreating generation is arranging their own boomer boom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read recently that in 2007 the absolute numbers of births in the US passed the peak baby boom year of 1957 for the first time.

Seems like the current procreating generation is arranging their own boomer boom!

That's mostly due to the ever growing latino community, which tends to have far more children. White Americans are having less kids than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All that Wiki stuff is about the USA. The graph - and this website - are UK-based. And what we're talking about here is numbers of people in our population, and their effect on house prices. Clearly, for us, the main population boom was between 1955 and 1975. The big problem will be in about 25 years time, when lots of the 'real' baby boomers want to downsize - property crash Mk2?!

No, it was easing off after 1964. Definitions matter when you're discussing populations and whatever different definition you wish to choose, by common convention 'baby boomers' did not extend past the sixties. Otherwise please give me a reference for 'boomers' population extending post-sixties in the UK.

Wiki again: In the United Kingdom, the pattern of increased birth rates was more likely to decrease within six months. There was a sharp post-World War II peak in 1947, when more babies were born than in any year since the post-World War I peak in 1920, followed by a decline, followed by a broader but lower peak in the 1960s. Thus British Baby Boomers are younger than their American counterparts and had not risen to such prominence when the term was coined. The two peaks can clearly be seen in the age structure of England and Wales.[8]

1960s 'baby boom' in UK peaking at 2.95 children per woman in 1964.

Edited by roadtoruin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's mostly due to the ever growing latino community, which tends to have far more children. White Americans are having less kids than ever before.

I'm sure you're right, there's something not too disimilar happening right here, but in the fullness of time that's simply the racial evolution of the country and it doesn't refute the underlying numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Baby Boomers won't be retiring for 20 - 25 years. The main 'baby boom' was between 1955 and 1975.

Baby_Boomers.gif

I do , however, know some people who are retiring this year. They sold off their 4-house BTL portfolio 2 years ago...and they're not going on a cruise!

I disagree. I consider baby boomers to be of my parents age. My dad has turned 60 this year and although he doesn't own property he is semi retiring for the next 5 fives on a fantastic local government final salary pension and doing the same job on less hours with pro rata pay and earning more for the next five years than he does now!!!

But all my friends parents are wjat I call true boomers, retired or retiring in the next few years full time, have 1-2 properties they are still in with good pensions and no mortgages becasue they started on the ladder in the 60's, got the final family home in the 70's or mid 80's at the latest and then saw their mortages inflated away to less than a few years salary by the time we got to the mid to late 90's.

They also had us kids in the mid sixties to mid 70's, who entered the housing market in the early mid 90's, and also saw our mortgages inflated away by the OO's (but not to the same extent) and who are mostly now in final family homes since 2006 but with bigger mortages than our parents would have had. But we are affording it.

So for me the true boomers are those who rode the boom and are laughing, and who's kids caught property in the last crash and rode that boom and who dont need any gifted deposits to climb the ladder or start the ladder. These boomers have it all, and they get to keep their cash.

Those late boomers a decade later who's kids are now in their late 20's are in no where near as good as position because they may be ok, but their kids are shafted by huge HPI costs to keep the family line going like their parents did.

True?

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
will people coming up to retirement eventually be forced to sell their large houses in one big glut when heating them becomes too expensive even on a reasonable pension. Perhaps the meteoric rise in council tax will force them out. Perhaps it'll make space for younger families or perhaps the sudden glut of large properties on the market (in need of modernisation) will make the property market yet worse.

Interesting questions. But boomers aren't a generic and homogeneous category. There's hard up boomers who will still be in the workforce aged 75 (protected by ever more rigorous age discrimination legislation), and then there's the 40% of UK properties which are mortgage free, I suspect that boomers account for a disproportionate percentage of these, and if that status aligns with a comfortable final-salary pension then those boomers may be able to expand their property ownership in future years rather than becoming forced sellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As capital economics recently pointed out, it's fine to keep hold of a place bigger than your needs in a house price bubble, since it "makes" you money.

When that bubble bursts, however, that position reverses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Baby Boomers won't be retiring for 20 - 25 years. The main 'baby boom' was between 1955 and 1975.

Baby_Boomers.gif

I do , however, know some people who are retiring this year. They sold off their 4-house BTL portfolio 2 years ago...and they're not going on a cruise!

I keep seeing this chart posted, but I don't actually believe it. If this is true then this make me a babyboomer, but when I was young they were actually closing schools and consolidating class sizes as there weren't enough kids. The previous generations had definitely been larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While 1945-1965 reflect the post-World War II demographic boom in births, there is a growing consensus among generational experts that two distinct cultural generations occupy these years. The conceptualization that has gained the most public acceptance is that of a 1942-1953 Baby Boom Generation, followed by a 1954-1965 Generation Jones. Boomers and Jonesers had dramatically different formative experiences which gave rise to dramatically different collective personalities. In his book Boomer Nation, Steve Gillon states that the baby boom began in 1946 and ends in 1960, but he divides Baby Boomers into two groups: Boomers, born between 1945 and 1957; and Shadow Boomers born between 1958 and 1964.[6]

This makes sense. The early boomers had their childhood in the austerity years of rationing in the early 50s - mothers who hoarded paper bags, string & rubber bands; who planned the weeks meals in advance and who were neurotic about wastage. This gave the early boomers relatively frugal habits which enabled them to take advantage of the freeing up of the mortgage market (though it didn't really free up till the the 80s - for both my house purchases in the 1970s I had to invest in several building societies for 6 months to establish my credentials).

Those with long memories may recall that it was in 1957 that Harold Macmillan said "You've never had it so good" - neatly marking the return to times of growth and security; children born after this grew up in an era of plenty.

The "I know my rights" generation followed a bit later...

Edited by cartimandua51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a boomer and damn proud of it if thats possible. Born late 40s and first bought in 1970 finally sold out in 2007 to do what I want to do from now on. Just one thing I will say though in answer to one point, houses were not 'cheap' in 1970 they were bloody expensive and meant I had to do 72 hours a week to pay the morgage :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a boomer and damn proud of it if thats possible. Born late 40s and first bought in 1970 finally sold out in 2007 to do what I want to do from now on. Just one thing I will say though in answer to one point, houses were not 'cheap' in 1970 they were bloody expensive and meant I had to do 72 hours a week to pay the morgage :(

I'm also a boomer (born late 50's), but not quite so proud.

My father and my grandfather fought in conscription wars, I didn't. I hope it stays that way for my kids.

My parents and grandparents didn't get too much in the way of educational opportunities, where as I got a scholarship to a local grammar and then a 100% state-subsidised place at university. My kids won't enjoy such opportunities to leapfrog social divides.

My parents and grandparents worked all their lives in tough manual ocupations. My "free" education got me an extravagently well-paid job in the burgeoning media industry, and will see me taking early retirement with a generous pension. I very much doubt my kids will get a final-salary scheme pension, and the corporate world's now a much nastier place.

My parents and grandparents were raised in an authoritarian era where horizons were constrained. I got to shag around to my hearts content, after the pill but before aids, and saw the world on the cheap. I doubt my kids will have such a carefree time of it.

Ours was the blessed generation, all the gain but none of the pain. We're not special, just bloody lucky to be born when we were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
Ours was the blessed generation, all the gain but none of the pain. We're not special, just bloody lucky to be born when we were.

...so far....I'm starting to see a game of tendering against private companies by the NHS, and pitting hospital doctors vs primary care doctors in the process. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, so I did mention that doing away with socialised medicine is probably not that smart as you're getting older.

Ho hum, good times for the private one man GP working from home with minimal overheads until a draconian legislative burden prevents it.

Then I suppose the only rational move is to set up elsewhere in the world.

Socialised banking, privatised medicine.

Hope everyone's ready.

Edited by DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm also a boomer (born late 50's), but not quite so proud.

My father and my grandfather fought in conscription wars, I didn't. I hope it stays that way for my kids.

My parents and grandparents didn't get too much in the way of educational opportunities, where as I got a scholarship to a local grammar and then a 100% state-subsidised place at university. My kids won't enjoy such opportunities to leapfrog social divides.

My parents and grandparents worked all their lives in tough manual ocupations. My "free" education got me an extravagently well-paid job in the burgeoning media industry, and will see me taking early retirement with a generous pension. I very much doubt my kids will get a final-salary scheme pension, and the corporate world's now a much nastier place.

My parents and grandparents were raised in an authoritarian era where horizons were constrained. I got to shag around to my hearts content, after the pill but before aids, and saw the world on the cheap. I doubt my kids will have such a carefree time of it.

Ours was the blessed generation, all the gain but none of the pain. We're not special, just bloody lucky to be born when we were.

I didn't suggest we were special and I fully realise we were lucky to be born when we were. I am proud because I took the opportunity that my parents and grandparents fought so hard to give me. I too had a 'free education' and worked hard to get where I did. I retired at 52 with a good pension and now live my life how I want to. Were it not for them I would probably still be working in a factory or lorry driving but I am not. I worked hard while others around me took the easy way out and 'dropped out' thats why I am proud to be a boomer, I took advantage of what was on offer because of the previous generations and I thank them for the oppotunity that I grabbed with both hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note on the interpretation of the population pyramid shown.

As shown it does look like the boom came later. But it didn't. It really was 1946 to about 1962 in uk - with 1946-50 especially high. Though it wasn't as dramatic as in US.

If you had looked at the pyramid 20 years ago you would have reached that conclusion.

But now it looks like there aren't so many in the 1950-60 period

The reason?

Death. Once you get to around 40 years old, death rates start to rise, and even more after 50, so some of the boomers are already gone, which reduces the secondary bulge 1950-62 so it looks like 62-75 was bigger. But it wasn't. (it also reduces 1946-50 but that was very big so still stands out despite the mortality)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever the figures show, the boomer definition used by almost all sources I've ever read doesn't normally stretch past the early 60's.

From Wiki:

If the gross number of births were the indicator, births began to decline from the peak in 1957 (4,300,000), but fluctuated or did not decline by much more than 40,000 (1959-1960) to 60,000 (1962-1963) until a sharp decline from 1964 (4,027,490) to 1965 (3,760,358). This sharp decline resulted from millions of women using birth control pills, which were introduced in 1960 in the U.S., and widely used by 1964.[4] This makes 1965 a good year to mark the end of the baby boom in the U.S.[5] However, it is important to note that 1964 is a nationwide average. Although it is true that 1946 marks the beginning of the boom nationwide, the end of the boom (the year of baseline birthrates returning to pre-war levels) on a state-by-state basis varied a great deal spanning throughout the 1960s.

While 1945-1965 reflect the post-World War II demographic boom in births, there is a growing consensus among generational experts that two distinct cultural generations occupy these years. The conceptualization that has gained the most public acceptance is that of a 1942-1953 Baby Boom Generation, followed by a 1954-1965 Generation Jones. Boomers and Jonesers had dramatically different formative experiences which gave rise to dramatically different collective personalities. Other monikers have been sometimes used to describe the younger cohort, like "Trailing Edge Boomers", "Late Boomers", and "Shadow Boomers". In his book Boomer Nation, Steve Gillon states that the baby boom began in 1946 and ends in 1960, but he divides Baby Boomers into two groups: Boomers, born between 1945 and 1957; and Shadow Boomers born between 1958 and 1964.[6]

The concept of a group of people clogging up the system, called the Baby boomer's is in fact an American phenomenon, the UK gave that a miss on account of not having much in the way of post war prosperity. Many on this site tend to believe that all their housing woes are on account of this fictitiously large group of people who in fact in reality live in the USA. It just shows you how people can wind themselves up and base their aggressive scapegoatism on an imaginary tribe instead of looking for the real culprits, ie the bankers who gained their freedom to indebt everyone back in the 80's and the politicians that allowed them to etc etc In fact you are doing nothing more than playing stupid part that you were given and that quite conveniently draws attention away from the real culprits. The real perpetrators of todays paradigm were actually born between around 1915 and 1930.

No, it was easing off after 1964. Definitions matter when you're discussing populations and whatever different definition you wish to choose, by common convention 'baby boomers' did not extend past the sixties. Otherwise please give me a reference for 'boomers' population extending post-sixties in the UK.

Wiki again: In the United Kingdom, the pattern of increased birth rates was more likely to decrease within six months. There was a sharp post-World War II peak in 1947, when more babies were born than in any year since the post-World War I peak in 1920, followed by a decline, followed by a broader but lower peak in the 1960s. Thus British Baby Boomers are younger than their American counterparts and had not risen to such prominence when the term was coined. The two peaks can clearly be seen in the age structure of England and Wales.[8]

1960s 'baby boom' in UK peaking at 2.95 children per woman in 1964.

1960s 'baby boom' in UK peaking at 2.95 children per woman in 1964.

which is completely different from the term as it is wrongly used in the UK

Baby_Boomers.gif

I disagree. I consider baby boomers to be of my parents age. My dad has turned 60 this year and although he doesn't own property he is semi retiring for the next 5 fives on a fantastic local government final salary pension and doing the same job on less hours with pro rata pay and earning more for the next five years than he does now!!!

But all my friends parents are wjat I call true boomers, retired or retiring in the next few years full time, have 1-2 properties they are still in with good pensions and no mortgages becasue they started on the ladder in the 60's, got the final family home in the 70's or mid 80's at the latest and then saw their mortages inflated away to less than a few years salary by the time we got to the mid to late 90's.

They also had us kids in the mid sixties to mid 70's, who entered the housing market in the early mid 90's, and also saw our mortgages inflated away by the OO's (but not to the same extent) and who are mostly now in final family homes since 2006 but with bigger mortages than our parents would have had. But we are affording it.

So for me the true boomers are those who rode the boom and are laughing, and who's kids caught property in the last crash and rode that boom and who dont need any gifted deposits to climb the ladder or start the ladder. These boomers have it all, and they get to keep their cash.

Those late boomers a decade later who's kids are now in their late 20's are in no where near as good as position because they may be ok, but their kids are shafted by huge HPI costs to keep the family line going like their parents did.

True?

M

Started on the ladder in the 60's ???? This was mostly pre-war born stock. The best time to buy property was the 60's followed by the early to mid 90's, and in fact you will find the biggest culprets re the BTL explosion are in fact those that started in the property market for the first time in the 90's, ie the current round of 40- 45 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm also a boomer (born late 50's), but not quite so proud.

My father and my grandfather fought in conscription wars, I didn't. I hope it stays that way for my kids.

My parents and grandparents didn't get too much in the way of educational opportunities, where as I got a scholarship to a local grammar and then a 100% state-subsidised place at university. My kids won't enjoy such opportunities to leapfrog social divides.

My parents and grandparents worked all their lives in tough manual ocupations. My "free" education got me an extravagently well-paid job in the burgeoning media industry, and will see me taking early retirement with a generous pension. I very much doubt my kids will get a final-salary scheme pension, and the corporate world's now a much nastier place.

My parents and grandparents were raised in an authoritarian era where horizons were constrained. I got to shag around to my hearts content, after the pill but before aids, and saw the world on the cheap. I doubt my kids will have such a carefree time of it.

Ours was the blessed generation, all the gain but none of the pain. We're not special, just bloody lucky to be born when we were.

''Ours was the blessed generation, all the gain but none of the pain. We're not special, just bloody lucky to be born when we were.''

Apart from us that left school only to find we were in permanent recession on and off for the next 20 years, I suspect I am around the same age, but I personally know nobody that has been able to stay in a job or industry long enough to claim a pension never mind a paid for early retirement, you are the exception within the age group. Early retirement for myself and several contemporaries means being thrown out on your ar*se before turning 50 then permanent unemployment due to the arrogant and bigoted nature of todays employers, at least the younger people around here will benefit from the new anti ageist laws. Many people of my age had nothing but redundancy after redundancy in through the late 70's all the way to the mid 90's (and thats educated people, not skivers), several people I know lost their first houses in the last recession and some haven't recovered financially from that. Some of you were blessed, and good luck to you but to give everyone the impression that it was across the board would be totally incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baby_Boomers.gif

There are a lot of 62-year-olds. What will this mean for equities in 3 years' time when they retire? When a pension fund is sold for an annuity then is there a net withdrawal from the stock market or do the annuity companies invest in stocks too? Just wondering if the sort of stock held in the last few years of a pension fund might not be the best thing to be invested in in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 399 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.