Over 60s Should Be Encouraged To Downsize

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Traduk

Unfortunately although I know that I am verbose beyond all logic you still do not get the point.

We Boomers had expectations and aspirations that for the most were zip, nada, nil but against the measure of our parents and grandparents just to survive without succumbing to Polio, Tuberculosis or being atomised in some muddy field of warfare looked like a positive way forward. Even that was frequently in question with wars almost constant and a culmination in the near miss of the Cuban crisis.

Of course there were jobs a plenty and at one point I had three (day, evenings and weekends) but they were at exploitative low pay and mind numbingly boring which if you were prepared to tolerate brain dead toil allowed the extraordinarily slow creation of enough capital to actually climb on the lowest rung of the housing ladder. With a non working wife and two children I turned down offers of council accommodation whilst against my wife's wishes I struggled for 5 years to acquire a house which needed complete renovation.

Nine years later, the fourteen years of saving and re-building reached a workable asset base which had initially and all the way through looked as though it had no prospect of success. The only way forward then was to risk the lot on business ventures which true to my inner philosophy of I will not be beaten, won through but not without a ton of grief on the way.

Nobody has or has ever had a working crystal ball. We had no hopes or aspirations any more than now. What we did have collectively and individually was a determination to make the most of what was available and contrary to the themes currently in circulation didn't decide to lose the human race in self defeatism and criticism of others before even trying to run the race. Perhaps in the educational lack of competitiveness they should have pointed out that although not coming first is acceptable, not taking part is not.

There could be a far better tomorrow just around the corner and with luck you may not have to strive for 14 years just to become a player. Luck sometimes visits those who are unprepared but mostly overnight luck is after years or decades of diligent preparation with hope but not expectation.

wages were low but so were living costs.

People may seem better off today but think where most people would be without easy credit.

[Ignitionnet]

I won't respond in too verbose a manner beyond pointing out that your generation certainly did have the throw of the dice as far as New Labour goes - the usual pattern is that people start off idealistic and vote Labour then lean towards Tory as they age and accumulate wealth, the Boomers as by far the largest block of votes had the power. You noted New Labour being wealth friendly.

I refer back to my previous answers with regards to inheritances. These are fine, apart from that they are a disaster for social mobility. Those born into relative wealth get a nice fat inheritance, those not born into it, robbed of the opportunity to accumulate it for themselves, don't have it to look forward to.

Regarding this earnings boom, I'm struggling to find it?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/lab...-work/earnings

The only real things I can see are a transfer of wealth from one group to lower earners via tax credits and an entirely disproportionate increase in public sector compensation.

One big cause of the housing boom is obviously Gordon's pensions grab pushing a lot of wealth into the housing market via buy to let and supply not keeping up. Rather than prices dropping as they became less affordable fiscal policy was geared towards supply of cheap credit to give the impression of affordability.

As noted I have little interest in stereotypes I'm only discussing the demographics as a whole, to stereotype is silly especially by me given I'm hardly the stereotypical 30-something in most ways.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

wages were low but so were living costs.

People may seem better off today but think where most people would be without easy credit.

Living costs were ludicrously high. The basics of food, clothing and other day to day items were not only costly but in many instances of rubbish quality.

The only thing which stands out as cheap is petrol but cars were of rubbish quality, expensive to keep going and required a substantial DIY capability. That all changed with the 70's oil shock and everything about running a car became a financial headache.

Mass production of the levels of today's efficiencies took decades to arrive with the transition from hand assembled rubbish to robotics. Massive imports of foreign goods especially in the high tech area is a relatively modern phenomena and in white goods and electronics prices are comparatively as cheap as chips.

My parents generation had known the reality of real hunger. My father's motivation was to avoid the return to that situation whatever the costs and he worked into his mid 70's driven by the scars of earlier life. Many of the earlier boomers are driven to avoid a return to a life of little more than survival in what today is classed as poverty. You had to go through it to know it.

[techguyone]

It's good to see someone posting with knowledge of those times, rather than hearing todays generation crying about how unfair it is.

I'm not a boomer or todays generation but I've seen and lived through aspects of both.

[Traduk]

Ignitionnet,

I believe that the purist definition of democracy is the election of the representatives of most to serve the interests of the most. If the boomers were the major voting faction then democracy has been served as designed.

Details could be produced to display that in many instances they have not had that good a deal but the scope is too large and life isn't forever.

You will not find evidence of massive salaries or earnings within general statistics because quite simply the top 5% are diluted down by the mass and are counterbalanced by those at the bottom. My eldest daughter rocketed into the stratosphere as did many other younger people I know and know of. even my GP friend after receiving massive boosts to his income stated that he felt quite poorly rewarded compared with his golfing peers.

It was those salaries that gave the quantum leap to house prices and the charts show the lift off in 1997 when Labour came to power. You can find statistics to disprove anything but cause and effect does not correlate.

If you work anywhere the City of London that was the primary source of the era of cornucopia. You presumably cannot have been unaware of the changing dynamic and as much as anything your predicament is as a result of that era above all else.

I have tried beyond all reasonable efforts to give a different perspective on some realities as opposed to convenient urban myths, However you appear so deeply entrenched that any effort on my part is starting to appear to be pointless.

I do however as I have done all the time sympathise with your position. In the 70's I was so distressed with my situation and the mess politician's were making of the world, that I stopped all newspapers, refused to view the news and plodded on without negative inputs. I refused to allow negative inputs to undermine my long term hopes for fear that blaming everyone and their dog for my position would actually make my personal life worse. In retrospect life moves on and things did get better and as my thoughts and feelings would have counted for nothing I am pleased to have moved out of political debate.

[Ignitionnet]

Aside from some apparent contradictions in your post you perhaps give me too little credit in some ways.

All this said it's probably a good time to let this lie - had I realised it would provoke such a reaction I'd have likely not posted the article.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Aside from some apparent contradictions in your post you perhaps give me too little credit in some ways.

All this said it's probably a good time to let this lie - had I realised it would provoke such a reaction I'd have likely not posted the article.

I agree.

I will not even ask what those contradictions are because (a) I know what they are and (b) they are contradictions only if selectivity is employed.

I have noticed that in conversations with people of your cohort that there is a tendency to focus on one element of a conversation or in this case typed words and and a failure either by choice or lack of analytical overview to reference to the concept.

I cannot comprehend that apparent tendency because by nature and education I take a holistic view and relate facts with reference to an overview. There are many instances in my replies where an earlier paragraph qualifies a statement in a later one and ameliorates something which may be contentious. In almost every event the amelioration failed. As I have experienced with regret in real life there is an intergenerational gulf which starts with communication.

BTW many thanks for the link provided in another thread re: the lecture on Corn syrup sugar. Most enlightening.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Traduk

Living costs were ludicrously high. The basics of food, clothing and other day to day items were not only costly but in many instances of rubbish quality.

The only thing which stands out as cheap is petrol but cars were of rubbish quality, expensive to keep going and required a substantial DIY capability. That all changed with the 70's oil shock and everything about running a car became a financial headache.

Mass production of the levels of today's efficiencies took decades to arrive with the transition from hand assembled rubbish to robotics. Massive imports of foreign goods especially in the high tech area is a relatively modern phenomena and in white goods and electronics prices are comparatively as cheap as chips.

My parents generation had known the reality of real hunger. My father's motivation was to avoid the return to that situation whatever the costs and he worked into his mid 70's driven by the scars of earlier life. Many of the earlier boomers are driven to avoid a return to a life of little more than survival in what today is classed as poverty. You had to go through it to know it.

They werent that high as my dad paid a semi detached mortgage by himself as well as covering our entire household bills, these days thats not possible unless on a silly high salary.

He disagrees with you as well, he said times were rough but no comparison to todays era for the young. So I guess its not cut and dry.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

They werent that high as my dad paid a semi detached mortgage by himself as well as covering our entire household bills, these days thats not possible unless on a silly high salary.

He disagrees with you as well, he said times were rough but no comparison to todays era for the young. So I guess its not cut and dry.

Regional variations come into play again.

I have lived all my life in the Surrey, so called, stockbroker belt.

In those days the primary cost of interest to the boomers was house purchase. I travelled a lot around my twenties and the striking factor that I can remember to this day is the ridiculously low prices asked for new houses the further North I went. Actually anywhere outside of commuting distance of London saw a plunge in the prices. With most forms of transport proving unreliable, mobility wasn't an option. Re-location was and those on national standard salaries had a much easier time where housing was cheaper, much as they do today.

The harder the task of creating a deposit and the higher the price of house the harder the life. Had I lived some distance away from where I have chosen to live, life would have been a lot easier but as family members and others have found, the short term gains of cheaper housing is a one way ticket as differentials move with prices and they cannot return to where I live without a huge downgrade in housing.

Around that time I met dozens of people from all over the UK and everyone had a different take on the situation but the general theme was not good.

The status of poor and rich is highly variable inasmuch as somebody on £100K p.a. can be poor in London whereas they would potentially be rich in the Midlands. Similarly comfortable or wealthy in the Midlands may be a non starter near London.

[bonzoe]

[QUOTE=Ignitionnet;35323702](snip) I'm in the evil top 5% in terms of income, though oddly bottom 20% of assets due to the whole generational thing.

I note that you are aged 33. Do you really think that assets come so quickly? Just wait 30 or so years and you may be surprised.

I think that you will find that the baby boomers were not asset rich at your age.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=Ignitionnet;35323702](snip) I'm in the evil top 5% in terms of income, though oddly bottom 20% of assets due to the whole generational thing.

don't worry by the time you retire you'll have bucket loads of "assets" and bugger all income just like those pesky boomers

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bonzoe

I note that you are aged 33. Do you really think that assets come so quickly? Just wait 30 or so years and you may be surprised.

I think that you will find that the baby boomers were not asset rich at your age.

No, but I expect to at very least have been able to start on the ladder acquiring them. The major casualty is of course social mobility, those born into relative, although not absolute, wealth are ok. If you aren't and merely have your own work to rely on rather than your parents you've no chance.

“Now new research based on CML figures shows the average age of first-time buyers who can get help from their parents has fallen to 27, while first-time buyers who are not lucky enough to have rich parents have to wait until they are an average of 37 years old.”

Doesn't leave a hell of a lot of time to raise a family when average person without parents with money can't get stable housing until they're 37. It's an absolute unmitigated disaster.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

No, but I expect to at very least have been able to start on the ladder acquiring them. The major casualty is of course social mobility, those born into relative, although not absolute, wealth are ok. If you aren't and merely have your own work to rely on rather than your parents you've no chance.

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

OK, I've got 8years on you, however my wife (who only has 2years on you) and I are probably in the top 5% and have a very nice detached farm house in the country.

Both have done this without any financial assistance from any family member, in fact it is us that do the assisting.

The wife has progressed in a major national company from secretery to Managing Director in 14years.

I'm not as prolific, but am doing quite well too.

This is not from being entrepeneurs (spelling?) this is just through working well in a career.

It's all too easy to blame "social mobility". Oppotunities are there.

I appreciate that getting a foot up in London is difficult, answer, leave London. The centre of the universe it isn't.

[Ignitionnet]

Disagree all you want your story isn't typical just as mine isn't.

Doesn't change the numbers as a whole and it's worth mentioning that the 8 years you have on me potentially counted for an awful lot too.

I'm not specifically referring to me and I even mention that while frustrated I will of course get there in the end which is more than much of our youth is looking at now.

In short you're alright Jack, I will be alright Jack, I'm not glib about the chances my peers and those younger than me have. You and I both have exceptional careers and are both in that top 5% - what about the other 95% Pierre, because there most certainly aren't enough exceptional careers to go around.

If you read also you'll note that I am leaving London, I'm annoyed about having to but am doing it. I'll likely be just down the M62 from you in fact.

It doesn't change that most aren't as lucky as me, or you, and won't have the opportunities available to them. That is the disaster and that is the issue with social mobility.

[Pierre]

I agree that there are areas in this country where I would despair. There are estates and family/social situations that would take a gargantuan effort and support to get out of.

I am in no way saying that everybody has an equal chance in that respect.

And yes, in some areas there are no opportunities and little hope, but as you say our circumstances are not typical, so is that other end of the spectrum not typical.

It doesn't change that most aren't as lucky as me, or you,

I do take exception to that remark, however.

Luck, in my circumstances, has nothing to do with it. Work, and making the most of opportunities that are presented.

What's the famous phrase, "the harder I work the luckier I get."

Good luck with your new venture.