LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Maybe the graph is showing us that the Boomers were earning from a much younger age?TheBigBean said:
Firstly, it is better to use stats than just to expect people to make assumptions. I can make plenty of those, but the trouble is they may not be true.kingstongraham said:
I assume that is the data that is available, and that it is not beyond people to make assumptions beyond the currently predicted line for millenials. Unless you think it's conceivable there will be a massive step change in millenials' favour for no reason in the next three years.TheBigBean said:
I missed the gen X line as it is so light. That is indeed higher than the millenials and lower than the boomers. There is no overlap between the millenials and the boomers though.kingstongraham said:
It doesn't, does it? The median age is along the bottom, and the millenials and gen X line is much lower than the boomers line.TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
What may be a big problem with the graph is the differing number of people in each generation.
Secondly, if the differential is 33-36, I would agree that a massive change is unlikely, but if it is 30-40, then I would expect a significant change in wealth. I don't think it says what element is missing.
I would assume at 20, most people don't have much wealth, so even baby boomers will have grown from near zero on that chart to the level they are at at 40. I would also expect that curve to increase far more rapidly in their 30s.
There is certainly a difference between the ages as people have started to live longer and world becomes more interconnected.0 -
Times today: "Boris Johnson allegedly told aides in Downing Street he would rather let coronavirus “rip” than impose a second lockdown because of the economic harm further restrictions would cause.
"The prime minister is said to have argued in September that there was no evidence lockdowns worked and described them as “mad” during an intense debate within government."
Isn't that around the time that Sunak got him on the phone with Anders Tegnell?0 -
The general vibe of the chart is not anything new.
It's been discussed for a good 5 years. The stats are all there if you want to look for them.
Whenever it's brought up people can't help but give either the four yorkshireman bit or stress that they have kids so they know too, and think by young they mean anyone under 25, rather than anyone under 45. Of course there are exceptions - these are macro trends.
The dividing line in politics is becoming the same across the west as the demographics move in the same direction, and that is age.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
I am interested in what is driving that. I am generally of the view the economic situation for a group is almost always the most important driver in the political persuasion of someone, and so I see the correlation between the voting preferences and the wealth situation as causation.
I know this regularly gets dismissed, presumably because most people who are in charge have had a lifetime where your class mattered more than your age when it came to who you voted for, but that isn't the world anymore.
It's not moaning, as much as you want it to be so it can be dismissed. It's the reality of the situation. It's also not something old people have personally done. So don't take it as an attack on you.0 -
'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well no it literally wasn't.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
If you go back and look the change is around the middle of this decade.
It was an influence yes, but it was never the biggest driver.0 -
It does have an overlap with class, and is changing society. IFS report out yesterday talks about the impact of future inheritance on saving behaviour, and the way the growing accumulation of a large portion of wealth in homes will widen the gap within generations, dependent on how wealthy your parents are.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/154070 -
If you tie up the lack of economic mobility and opportunity with the challenge of climate change - which will, if it continues, affect the young plenty more than the old in their lives, you can see why things are quite so polarised.0
-
Considerably before this century, far less decade.rick_chasey said:
Well no it literally wasn't.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
If you go back and look the change is around the middle of this decade.
It was an influence yes, but it was never the biggest driver.
Similarly the young who think they have discovered sex and drugs while the elderly maintain a discreet silence. 🤣🤣🤣
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
This maxim – variously attributed to Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and Victor Hugo, among others – neatly captures the common notion that to be on the left of the political spectrum is to be young and idealistic, while to be on the right is to be older and more pragmatic."The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Today programme interview with Therese Coffey - raising Johnson maybe not being entirely focussed when he is personally ringing journalists to talk about Dominic Cummings. She said that wasn't confirmed, and the interviewer said that as far as he knew, Sam Coates has never "been fired for lying" !!0
-
Right, witty anecdotes aside, the actual polling data does not support it however.pblakeney said:
Considerably before this century, far less decade.rick_chasey said:
Well no it literally wasn't.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
If you go back and look the change is around the middle of this decade.
It was an influence yes, but it was never the biggest driver.
Similarly the young who think they have discovered sex and drugs while the elderly maintain a discreet silence. 🤣🤣🤣
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
This maxim – variously attributed to Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and Victor Hugo, among others – neatly captures the common notion that to be on the left of the political spectrum is to be young and idealistic, while to be on the right is to be older and more pragmatic."0 -
Well, one of my hobby horses is about the need for much more inheritance taxes.kingstongraham said:
It does have an overlap with class, and is changing society. IFS report out yesterday talks about the impact of future inheritance on saving behaviour, and the way the growing accumulation of a large portion of wealth in homes will widen the gap within generations, dependent on how wealthy your parents are.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15407
0 -
I suspect most people on here are Gen X which is a sort of nothingness between Boomers and Millennials but does mean we have a foot in both camps.
An example is that far more of us would have gone to Uni than our parents but way less than now. Grants were limited but we did not pay fees. This meant you could work evenings and holidays to avoid debts.
There were 200 people in my school year, about 5 went to Uni. My friends are all from Uni and have all done better than their parents, there is no reason why their kids should do better than them.
I disagree with Rick about economic mobility which i think could be down to Oxbridge exposing him to proper money.
My experience is of people coming from a comfortable/grafting background and have gone on to live lives their parents could never have dreamt of.
My FiL came from a good background and had a very successful career in FS, neither of his sons will get close to his earning capacity. Why should they expect to? If they lived in a pit village and followed their father into the same job then yes they would earn more. I think it is the economic mobility of the previou generations which has broken the link of successive generations being better off.
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world0 -
I appreciate that it's quite a niche viewpoint, but from my professional experience, property ownership isn't quite the exclusive preserve of the old that some would have you believe.TheBigBean said:
Well, one of my hobby horses is about the need for much more inheritance taxes.kingstongraham said:
It does have an overlap with class, and is changing society. IFS report out yesterday talks about the impact of future inheritance on saving behaviour, and the way the growing accumulation of a large portion of wealth in homes will widen the gap within generations, dependent on how wealthy your parents are.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/154071985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.0 -
Millennials without a parental safety net are in a worse situation than Gen X without a parental safety net were.0
-
-
Yes, I understand that. Does this relate to inheritance tax?rjsterry said:
I appreciate that it's quite a niche viewpoint, but from my professional experience, property ownership isn't quite the exclusive preserve of the old that some would have you believe.TheBigBean said:
Well, one of my hobby horses is about the need for much more inheritance taxes.kingstongraham said:
It does have an overlap with class, and is changing society. IFS report out yesterday talks about the impact of future inheritance on saving behaviour, and the way the growing accumulation of a large portion of wealth in homes will widen the gap within generations, dependent on how wealthy your parents are.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/154070 -
The link is to quite a short report.rjsterry said:
I appreciate that it's quite a niche viewpoint, but from my professional experience, property ownership isn't quite the exclusive preserve of the old that some would have you believe.TheBigBean said:
Well, one of my hobby horses is about the need for much more inheritance taxes.kingstongraham said:
It does have an overlap with class, and is changing society. IFS report out yesterday talks about the impact of future inheritance on saving behaviour, and the way the growing accumulation of a large portion of wealth in homes will widen the gap within generations, dependent on how wealthy your parents are.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/154070 -
Let me try againrick_chasey said:
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.
Since the war the males in the Romford branch of the Chasey family have followed their father into the print/taxi/market stall/car plant and through the generations have all seen an improvement in their relative wealth as measured by a slightly bigger house, slightly better car, the coming of package holidays etc. Then in the late 80s the latest male Chasey got a job as runner in a money broker, worked his way up and ended up earning £250k a year.
Other than the fact that he can afford to privately educate his kids or fund a start up for them why should they expect to do better than their father?0 -
It's an interesting set of stats for the US by the look of it.surrey_commuter said:
Do you have a graph showing the popularity of crushed avocado on artisan sourdough toast between now and the 1990s? And for fun throw overlay soy skinny lattes.rick_chasey said:
My favourite hobby horse.
Inter-generational disparity.
In any event, some people will feel differently when they are in the next generation. And have inherited etc. That's unless somebody implements some stupid idea about raising IHT to 100% or something like that..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The same reason everyone expects economic growth to happen.
Are you suggesting that there is a ceiling for economic growth?
Either way, whether they should feel that or not, that is the feeling, and that is driving the politics.
0 -
That's not a very macro view of the situation. Is anyone saying that all children should earn more than their parents?surrey_commuter said:
Let me try againrick_chasey said:
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.
Since the war the males in the Romford branch of the Chasey family have followed their father into the print/taxi/market stall/car plant and through the generations have all seen an improvement in their relative wealth as measured by a slightly bigger house, slightly better car, the coming of package holidays etc. Then in the late 80s the latest male Chasey got a job as runner in a money broker, worked his way up and ended up earning £250k a year.
Other than the fact that he can afford to privately educate his kids or fund a start up for them why should they expect to do better than their father?
The fact that he can fund them/they can expect to inherit from him does give them an advantage over others in the same cohort, and that advantage is growing.0 -
I don't generally ask where they got the money from, but certainly some have help from their folks. One enquiry was actually from the mother of two twenty-somethings, who had bought them a flat in Islington and was organising some renovation work as they were too busy with their high pressure city jobs. That said, there also seem to be a few who have made their own way.TheBigBean said:
Yes, I understand that. Does this relate to inheritance tax?rjsterry said:
I appreciate that it's quite a niche viewpoint, but from my professional experience, property ownership isn't quite the exclusive preserve of the old that some would have you believe.TheBigBean said:
Well, one of my hobby horses is about the need for much more inheritance taxes.kingstongraham said:
It does have an overlap with class, and is changing society. IFS report out yesterday talks about the impact of future inheritance on saving behaviour, and the way the growing accumulation of a large portion of wealth in homes will widen the gap within generations, dependent on how wealthy your parents are.pblakeney said:'twas ever thus. Nothing new. Older people get settled and want to hold onto what they have while realising that their younger principles count for less.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15407
More generally, I think the long period of low interest rates and the effect this has had on property prices are possibly the biggest contributor to the trend. Now everyone thinks of property as an asset you live in (rather than a home which also has a value). There's not much inducement for older people to downsize and spend the proceeds when the value of the property keeps climbing faster than most other investments.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I would say that there is no reason why economic growth should happen, check out Russia. Growth in the UK would have flatlined without massive govt spending.rick_chasey said:The same reason everyone expects economic growth to happen.
Are you suggesting that there is a ceiling for economic growth?
Either way, whether they should feel that or not, that is the feeling, and that is driving the politics.
I don't think Western Europe should expect economic growth of 2-3%0 -
Maybe I am being too literal in my interpretation but to me that is exactly what Rick is saying. For generations that is exactly what happened, my argument is that economic mobility under Maggie broke the link.kingstongraham said:
That's not a very macro view of the situation. Is anyone saying that all children should earn more than their parents?surrey_commuter said:
Let me try againrick_chasey said:
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.
Since the war the males in the Romford branch of the Chasey family have followed their father into the print/taxi/market stall/car plant and through the generations have all seen an improvement in their relative wealth as measured by a slightly bigger house, slightly better car, the coming of package holidays etc. Then in the late 80s the latest male Chasey got a job as runner in a money broker, worked his way up and ended up earning £250k a year.
Other than the fact that he can afford to privately educate his kids or fund a start up for them why should they expect to do better than their father?
The fact that he can fund them/they can expect to inherit from him does give them an advantage over others in the same cohort, and that advantage is growing.0 -
That's exactly what happened until Maggie came along? Literally everyone just did the same as their father and standards of living ticked up a bit gradually?surrey_commuter said:
Maybe I am being too literal in my interpretation but to me that is exactly what Rick is saying. For generations that is exactly what happened, my argument is that economic mobility under Maggie broke the link.kingstongraham said:
That's not a very macro view of the situation. Is anyone saying that all children should earn more than their parents?surrey_commuter said:
Let me try againrick_chasey said:
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.
Since the war the males in the Romford branch of the Chasey family have followed their father into the print/taxi/market stall/car plant and through the generations have all seen an improvement in their relative wealth as measured by a slightly bigger house, slightly better car, the coming of package holidays etc. Then in the late 80s the latest male Chasey got a job as runner in a money broker, worked his way up and ended up earning £250k a year.
Other than the fact that he can afford to privately educate his kids or fund a start up for them why should they expect to do better than their father?
The fact that he can fund them/they can expect to inherit from him does give them an advantage over others in the same cohort, and that advantage is growing.0 -
Right so from the perspective of the under 40 - you've got a generation who saw earnings across the board rise substantially, at the expense of the climate, and then they turn around and say "nah that was unsustainable and yeah, you're gonna earn sh!t, we've polluted the atmosphere to the point where climate change is a thing".surrey_commuter said:
I would say that there is no reason why economic growth should happen, check out Russia. Growth in the UK would have flatlined without massive govt spending.rick_chasey said:The same reason everyone expects economic growth to happen.
Are you suggesting that there is a ceiling for economic growth?
Either way, whether they should feel that or not, that is the feeling, and that is driving the politics.
I don't think Western Europe should expect economic growth of 2-3%
That creates grievances.0 -
on a macro level yeskingstongraham said:
That's exactly what happened until Maggie came along? Literally everyone just did the same as their father and standards of living ticked up a bit gradually?surrey_commuter said:
Maybe I am being too literal in my interpretation but to me that is exactly what Rick is saying. For generations that is exactly what happened, my argument is that economic mobility under Maggie broke the link.kingstongraham said:
That's not a very macro view of the situation. Is anyone saying that all children should earn more than their parents?surrey_commuter said:
Let me try againrick_chasey said:
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.
Since the war the males in the Romford branch of the Chasey family have followed their father into the print/taxi/market stall/car plant and through the generations have all seen an improvement in their relative wealth as measured by a slightly bigger house, slightly better car, the coming of package holidays etc. Then in the late 80s the latest male Chasey got a job as runner in a money broker, worked his way up and ended up earning £250k a year.
Other than the fact that he can afford to privately educate his kids or fund a start up for them why should they expect to do better than their father?
The fact that he can fund them/they can expect to inherit from him does give them an advantage over others in the same cohort, and that advantage is growing.
there was no problem until the generation after the increase in social/economic mobility arose
surprised nobody has objected to my suggestion that Maggie improved mobility by closing down traditional employers0 -
So i'm not sure that's the case.surrey_commuter said:
on a macro level yeskingstongraham said:
That's exactly what happened until Maggie came along? Literally everyone just did the same as their father and standards of living ticked up a bit gradually?surrey_commuter said:
Maybe I am being too literal in my interpretation but to me that is exactly what Rick is saying. For generations that is exactly what happened, my argument is that economic mobility under Maggie broke the link.kingstongraham said:
That's not a very macro view of the situation. Is anyone saying that all children should earn more than their parents?surrey_commuter said:
Let me try againrick_chasey said:
On a macro level this is quite difficult when earnings have not moved since 2007 and the breakdown of earnings by age is that under 35-40 earnings have *dropped* since 2009 and have grown by roughly the same level for those over.surrey_commuter said:
TL:DR
Millennials should stop whining and get on with making their own way in the world
I'm not whining about my own experience - I bought a house in my 20s with my own money (well, mine and my wife's) with no external help. I earn fine.
Since the war the males in the Romford branch of the Chasey family have followed their father into the print/taxi/market stall/car plant and through the generations have all seen an improvement in their relative wealth as measured by a slightly bigger house, slightly better car, the coming of package holidays etc. Then in the late 80s the latest male Chasey got a job as runner in a money broker, worked his way up and ended up earning £250k a year.
Other than the fact that he can afford to privately educate his kids or fund a start up for them why should they expect to do better than their father?
The fact that he can fund them/they can expect to inherit from him does give them an advantage over others in the same cohort, and that advantage is growing.
there was no problem until the generation after the increase in social/economic mobility arose
surprised nobody has objected to my suggestion that Maggie improved mobility by closing down traditional employers
She allowed for certain strata to make substantially more money - but the broad base of income growth got skewed towards higher earners and away from lower earners, so lower earners saw their incomes grow more slowly.0
