Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

My parents' endowments did make enough to clear the mortgage with some to spare and while they did have high rates the level was also quite low compared to how my dad's income eventually increased - not always easy though.

I started my "endowments" before I bought my first house and thankfully my wife had inherited money so when we did move we didn't need to increase our borrowing. We also switched to a repayment mortgage as it became clear the endowment would fall short though eventually one did hit target and while the other didn't we could still pay off mortgage and have enough to renew my car and a bit more.

I would hate to think of starting off these days as prices are so much above earnings.

But I don't think it's just the boomers hogging the houses but investment companies, sometimes overseas, who own large amounts of property and they won't be as affected by downturn in population.

Please don't take this rebuke from me as personal to you.
But the term "boomers" is offensive. It's a category, emphasised by people such as David Willetts as being a valid target for wealth taxes. (https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...minister-warns). Also that loser Javid took a pop at people born in the 40s and 50s. Disgraceful - we elect those idiots.

Here are the facts (on matters of fairness) that these idiots choose to ignore:

1. That generation rebuilt the population following WW2;

2. That generation worked hard, paid their taxes and bought their houses;

3. At the end of their working lives, it was obvious and reasonable that they'd have gained wealth;

4. To be essentially blamed by politicians for being alive is disgraceful;

5. It is the policies of successive governments that have brought us to the position of ridiculous house prices.

People of my generation should not be labelled otherwise we might have to add a "B" to BAME and that would be the final insult.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Please don't take this rebuke from me as personal to you.
But the term "boomers" is offensive. It's a category, emphasised by people such as David Willetts as being a valid target for wealth taxes. (https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...minister-warns). Also that loser Javid took a pop at people born in the 40s and 50s. Disgraceful - we elect those idiots.

Here are the facts (on matters of fairness) that these idiots choose to ignore:

1. That generation rebuilt the population following WW2;

2. That generation worked hard, paid their taxes and bought their houses;

3. At the end of their working lives, it was obvious and reasonable that they'd have gained wealth;

4. To be essentially blamed by politicians for being alive is disgraceful;

5. It is the policies of successive governments that have brought us to the position of ridiculous house prices.

People of my generation should not be labelled otherwise we might have to add a "B" to BAME and that would be the final insult.

Wind your neck in.

'Boomer' is a contraction of 'Baby Boomer' and is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate category used in population studies.

To answer you point by point:

1. No they didn't. The British population has been skyrocketing since the industrial revolution. In comparison to the rate of growth since 1800, deaths in both world wars barely register on the overall total. Yes, they contributed to a post-war baby boom, but 'rebuilt' is hyperbole.

2. They worked no harder and paid no more tax than anyone since. If you're trying to paint the baby boomer generation as somehow more virtuous than those that followed, then no, sorry, it won't wash. As for 'bought their houses'; well that's the exact point, isn't it. Economic conditions allowed them to do so in a way that is no longer possible in the UK. The pattern of property ownership amongst the postwar generation is a function of economics influenced by politics, not the protestant work ethic.

3. Not at issue.

4. A straw man.

5. Governments enact policies they put to voters at elections. It is well known that even today, policies are aimed squarely at boomers in retirement because they're the ones that vote in greatest numbers. Throughout their lives, the baby boomer generation (and, to be fair, some of the previous one, born in the 1930s and early 40s and too young to fight) have voted for policies that have preferred their interests.

Even implying that this issue is in any way equivalent to the prejudices faced by BAME citizens of the UK is very silly. The vast majority of these people came to the UK from the 1950s onwards to do the jobs boomers and their parents refused to, and have not shared in the wealth created in the UK in the second half of the 20th century in anything like the same way.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Wind your neck in.

'Boomer' is a contraction of 'Baby Boomer' and is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate category used in population studies.

To answer you point by point:

1. No they didn't. The British population has been skyrocketing since the industrial revolution. In comparison to the rate of growth since 1800, deaths in both world wars barely register on the overall total. Yes, they contributed to a post-war baby boom, but 'rebuilt' is hyperbole.

2. They worked no harder and paid no more tax than anyone since. If you're trying to paint the baby boomer generation as somehow more virtuous than those that followed, then no, sorry, it won't wash. As for 'bought their houses'; well that's the exact point, isn't it. Economic conditions allowed them to do so in a way that is no longer possible in the UK. The pattern of property ownership amongst the postwar generation is a function of economics influenced by politics, not the protestant work ethic.

3. Not at issue.

4. A straw man.

5. Governments enact policies they put to voters at elections. It is well known that even today, policies are aimed squarely at boomers in retirement because they're the ones that vote in greatest numbers. Throughout their lives, the baby boomer generation (and, to be fair, some of the previous one, born in the 1930s and early 40s and too young to fight) have voted for policies that have preferred their interests.

Even implying that this issue is in any way equivalent to the prejudices faced by BAME citizens of the UK is very silly. The vast majority of these people came to the UK from the 1950s onwards to do the jobs boomers and their parents refused to, and have not shared in the wealth created in the UK in the second half of the 20th century in anything like the same way.

What a load of tosh you've written.

Of course current conditions have been influenced by politics - bad politics. And now those thieves want to tap the hard working socio-economic group born not too long after WW2.

Your point of view that "boomers" have voted for policies that have preferred their interest is totally disingenuous. Parties at the helm have changed hands so many times and that's because none of them deliver their policies, except possibly Thatcher.

You also misrepresent my reference to BAME. I obviously meant that you might as well attach another "B" to the term so that we are grouped into a minority that is being unfairly labelled and treated.

The term "baby boomer" is condescending and a convenience for political distinction. I don't like being grouped in that way and nor do any of my other acquaintances who have stopped to think about it.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What a load of tosh you've written.

Of course current conditions have been influenced by politics - bad politics. And now those thieves want to tap the hard working socio-economic group born not too long after WW2.

Your point of view that "boomers" have voted for policies that have preferred their interest is totally disingenuous. Parties at the helm have changed hands so many times and that's because none of them deliver their policies, except possibly Thatcher.

You also misrepresent my reference to BAME. I obviously meant that you might as well attach another "B" to the term so that we are grouped into a minority that is being unfairly labelled and treated.

The term "baby boomer" is condescending and a convenience for political distinction. I don't like being grouped in that way and nor do any of my other acquaintances who have stopped to think about it.

If he was one of mine i'd stop his pocket money and cut off his comics .

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

If he was one of mine i'd stop his pocket money and cut off his comics .

You've tempted me, Papa. That's not all I'd cut off,

Only joking!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your point of view that "boomers" have voted for policies that have preferred their interest is totally disingenuous. Parties at the helm have changed hands so many times and that's because none of them deliver their policies, except possibly Thatcher.

There are loads of policies aimed at boomers. The whole method of addressing the problem with house prices by essentially getting the government to underwrite homes (Help to Buy, the soon-to-be 95% mortgages backed by the government) is to make sure they don't let houses prices fall by increasing supply.

The average price of homes since 1970 has gone from an average 4x salary to 8x.

What would actually help people buy homes is bringing that average down. Banks won't lend that ratio. However the risk of negative equirty plus people who view homes as a investment mean that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It's ridiculous the current Government's policy is to underwrite more housing debt.

Of course current conditions have been influenced by politics - bad politics. And now those thieves want to tap the hard working socio-economic group born not too long after WW2.

How do they want to tap into it?

The Government has aimed most of their cuts at younger people whereas the biggest increase in benefits was aimed at pensoners with the triple-lock. The money isn't coming from that generation.

Nothing will either, it's a big voting block so I wouldn't worry so much about it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

There are loads of policies aimed at boomers. The whole method of addressing the problem with house prices by essentially getting the government to underwrite homes (Help to Buy, the soon-to-be 95% mortgages backed by the government) is to make sure they don't let houses prices fall by increasing supply.

The average price of homes since 1970 has gone from an average 4x salary to 8x.

What would actually help people buy homes is bringing that average down. Banks won't lend that ratio. However the risk of negative equirty plus people who view homes as a investment mean that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It's ridiculous the current Government's policy is to underwrite more housing debt.



How do they want to tap into it?

The Government has aimed most of their cuts at younger people whereas the biggest increase in benefits was aimed at pensoners with the triple-lock. The money isn't coming from that generation.

Nothing will either, it's a big voting block so I wouldn't worry so much about it.

You make my point perfectly well.

There are loads of policies aimed at boomers. The whole method of addressing the problem with house prices by essentially getting the government to underwrite homes (Help to Buy, the soon-to-be 95% mortgages backed by the government) is to make sure they don't let houses prices fall by increasing supply.

Rubbish. How as any of that helped people born in the 40s/50s?

The average price of homes since 1970 has gone from an average 4x salary to 8x.

Exactly my point. Poor government policy has allowed this. Raiding the 40s/50s birth groups, which is what Javid and other postulated, would be pure theft. Hyperbole or not.

The Government has aimed most of their cuts at younger people whereas the biggest increase in benefits was aimed at pensioners with the triple-lock. The money isn't coming from that generation.

You have a mild point there in so far as the Tories wanted to lock in the pensioners' vote. But the 40s/50s birth group paid their taxes (including up to 95% or summat for highest earners), paid their NI and it seems to me to be right that the government should protect their pensions because most of them have no other income. Before you go into criticising the triple lock, I understand and accept the rational for reducing it to a double lock in present fiscal circumstances.


Just about the only thing that governments have got right is the financial side of Covid. In all other respects, they have incompetently led us to the argument we're having.

"Baby boomer" is a condescending, insulting categorisation of a hard working subset of the population - who are obviously on the way out due to age.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[
Rubbish. How as any of that helped people born in the 40s/50s?

They would have been in a prime age to buy and around 1970-1980. It was an ideal time to buy. Since then home-building has declined futher driving up the cost of the assets:



Government policy has been to continue to protect those prices.

Exactly my point. Poor government policy has allowed this. Raiding the 40s/50s birth groups, which is what Javid and other postulated, would be pure theft. Hyperbole or not.

It's intentional policy to protect housing as an investment.

You have a mild point there in so far as the Tories wanted to lock in the pensioners' vote. But the 40s/50s birth group paid their taxes (including up to 95% or summat for highest earners), paid their NI and it seems to me to be right that the government should protect their pensions because most of them have no other income. Before you go into criticising the triple lock, I understand and accept the rational for reducing it to a double lock in present fiscal circumstances.

There are all sorts of issues around pensions that we can't really get into here but simply put I do not really support reducing pensions. I think there is a grossly unfair age inequality in where the burden of austeity fell and how the current economy further penalises young people but it's not fair to cause pensoners to fall into.

But I also don't believe that whilst the people born in the 40/50s are a significant voting block that we'll see change to address these other problems.

[downquark1]

Most media narratives are built to appeal to the prejudices of boomers. Although in many regards I think millennials are worse.

Originally Posted by Chris

Paul, you’re not a boomer anyway, you’re early Generation X. Don’t know about you Papa, you might just be an unlucky boomer

Sorry, but I do count, its 1946 - 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

Baby boomers are the demographic cohort following the Silent Generation and preceding Generation X. The generation is generally defined as people born from 1946 to 1964

OK Boomer

Originally Posted by Chris

OK Boomer

[papa smurf]

I get all this boomer rubbish off my kids at least once per week,you bought all the houses ,gold plated pensions,gas guzzling cars,boat in private marina,you ruined the planet for us, my youngest moaned his generation can't afford to buy a house i replied but you own a house and it's worth more than mine,all i got was yea but yea but, kids eh

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The term "baby boomer" is condescending and a convenience for political distinction. I don't like being grouped in that way and nor do any of my other acquaintances who have stopped to think about it.

In what way is it condescending? I genuinely think you're getting overly sensitive to what is only a widely-accepted name for a demographic cohort.

[papa smurf]

What kind of person calls someone the B word, just what has this world come to when your given a badge of dishonour according to when you were born