Also in the news

[David Guiza]

9 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

An interesting article about the statistics of wealth in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48759591

 

 

Am quite surprised that Scotland is up there in terms of the below, especially after recently reading about many Scots rely on some form of benefits.

 

I found the age breakdown the most interesting, particularly as it almost mirrors the Brexit vote too.

 

Edited 2 July 2019 by David Guiza

[Countryfox]

 

Sad day ...   

 

 

[Innovindil]

39 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I found the age breakdown the most interesting, particularly as it almost mirrors the Brexit vote too.

 

Why exactly? Surely it makes sense that the longer you've been alive the more you would have accumulated? The dip around retirement age makes sense too. 

[Buce]

46 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Sad day ...   

 

 

 

They should be ostracized until they are brought to heel, the same as South Africa was over apartheid.

 

32 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Why exactly? Surely it makes sense that the longer you've been alive the more you would have accumulated? The dip around retirement age makes sense too. 

 

Possibly, but that particular generation benefited from an unparalleled perfect storm of high wages, low property prices and high private pensions the like of which was never seen before or will be again.

 

Edited 2 July 2019 by Buce

[David Guiza]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Why exactly? Surely it makes sense that the longer you've been alive the more you would have accumulated? The dip around retirement age makes sense too. 

Well I'd like to that in 40 years time, when i'm in the 61-70 bracket (shudders at the thought), there wouldn't be so much disparity between top and bottom. Of course the longer you have been on the planet, the more chance you have had to accumulate wealth, but the fact that 21-50 (around 26%+) of the population wouldn't even fill half of 61-70 (around 7-8% of the population) is ridiculous. Yet many in said age bracket can't quite grasp why those in the younger generations struggle financially. 

[Innovindil]

37 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Well I'd like to that in 40 years time, when i'm in the 61-70 bracket (shudders at the thought), there wouldn't be so much disparity between top and bottom. Of course the longer you have been on the planet, the more chance you have had to accumulate wealth, but the fact that 21-50 (around 26%+) of the population wouldn't even fill half of 61-70 (around 7-8% of the population) is ridiculous. Yet many in said age bracket can't quite grasp why those in the younger generations struggle financially. 

Comparing 21 year olds just starting out to people at their wealth peak is a bit dodgy, isn't it? Of course people just getting into work aren't going to have a lot of wealth. People between 41-50 still have 10-20 years of what should be peak earning potential. I'd expect them to more than match the current figures at retirement age. 

 

And in all honesty, I'm 30, and I can't quite grasp why those in younger generations struggle financially. 

[WigstonWanderer]

27 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Comparing 21 year olds just starting out to people at their wealth peak is a bit dodgy, isn't it? Of course people just getting into work aren't going to have a lot of wealth. People between 41-50 still have 10-20 years of what should be peak earning potential. I'd expect them to more than match the current figures at retirement age. 

 

And in all honesty, I'm 30, and I can't quite grasp why those in younger generations struggle financially. 

Got to agree with this. Interest rates were generally much higher 30 years ago, and expectations were much lower. We used to live in a crappy old ‘ouse with ‘oles in the roof but we were ‘appy.

 

Fact is, if you haven’t reached those sort of wealth levels by retirement, you are probably not going to have a very pleasant one. I’m absolute sure that today’s young will feel exactly the same by that age. Certainly up to the age of 30 I had a net wealth of zero.

 

Having said that, there do appear to be environmental, economic and resource issues that could well make the future much more uncomfortable for everyone, young or old, except the very rich.

 

 

Edited 2 July 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Nick]

Brexit Party MEP’s turned their backs during the EU opening and anthem.

 

Embarrassing stuff.

[David Guiza]

54 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Comparing 21 year olds just starting out to people at their wealth peak is a bit dodgy, isn't it? Of course people just getting into work aren't going to have a lot of wealth. People between 41-50 still have 10-20 years of what should be peak earning potential. I'd expect them to more than match the current figures at retirement age. 

 

And in all honesty, I'm 30, and I can't quite grasp why those in younger generations struggle financially. 

How is comparing 26% of the population having less than half the wealth of 7% of the population 'a bit dodgy'? If I were comapring just 21 year olds with just 60-65 year olds or then yes, the answer would be pretty obvious.

 

If you factored it down to 100 people, for the sake of maths, then that's 7 people having worked for a total of say 40 years = 280 years employment. 5 people having worked about 3 years = 15, another 5 working for 7 years = 35, another 5 for 10 years = 50 years, another 5 for 15 years = 75 and the final 6 for 20 years = 120. That's 295 working years. Unless you suddenly get some sort of huge bonus the moment you hit your mid 50s then I must be missing something that means 280 years of working means over double that of 295 years. Of course there are 65 year olds that have worked for 50 years, but there are 50 year olds that have worked for 35 years and so on, so I think, if anything, the example i've given is slightly in favour of the elder generation. 

 

How can you not quite grasp the struggle for younger generations by comparison? I'm a trainee solicitor and my wife is a secondary school teacher and we've only been able to buy a house with a 5% deposit because of the death of a family member. I don't really drink at all, I don't smoke, I drive an average car, and I don't really have any expensie hobbies, or jet off on any expensive holidays and we're hardly flushed with cash. Meanwhile my parents bought a 3 bed property in a lovely area on my Dad's wage alone 35 odd years ago. Plus those 50-70 year old who have a University degree and beyond will not be paying back the astronomical debt of the younger generations either.

Edited 2 July 2019 by David Guiza

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Brexit Party MEP’s turned their backs during the EU opening and anthem.

 

Embarrassing stuff.

 

Maybe they were just doing the Poznan in solidarity with Polish immigrants? 

[Kopfkino]

11 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

How is comparing 26% of the population having less than half the wealth of 7% of the population 'a bit dodgy'? If I were comapring just 21 year olds with just 60-65 year olds or then yes, the answer would be pretty obvious.

 

If you factored it down to 100 people, for the sake of maths, then that's 7 people having worked for a total of say 40 years = 280 years employment. 5 people having worked about 3 years = 15, another 5 working for 7 years = 35, another 5 for 10 years = 50 years, another 5 for 15 years = 75 and the final 6 for 20 years = 120. That's 295 working years. Unless you suddenly get some sort of huge bonus the moment you hit your mid 50s then I must be missing something that means 280 years of working means over double that of 295 years. Of course there are 65 year olds that have worked for 50 years, but there are 50 year olds that have worked for 35 years and so on, so I think, if anything, the example i've given is slightly in favour of the elder generation. 

 

 

 

I'm not saying anything about the wider point but that is comfortably the worst way of looking at wealth 

[Innovindil]

16 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

How is comparing 26% of the population having less than half the wealth of 7% of the population 'a bit dodgy'? If I were comapring just 21 year olds with just 60-65 year olds or then yes, the answer would be pretty obvious.

 

If you factored it down to 100 people, for the sake of maths, then that's 7 people having worked for a total of say 40 years = 280 years employment. 5 people having worked about 3 years = 15, another 5 working for 7 years = 35, another 5 for 10 years = 50 years, another 5 for 15 years = 75 and the final 6 for 20 years = 120. That's 295 working years. Unless you suddenly get some sort of huge bonus the moment you hit your mid 50s then I must be missing something that means 280 years of working means over double that of 295 years. Of course there are 65 year olds that have worked for 50 years, but there are 50 year olds that have worked for 35 years and so on, so I think, if anything, the example i've given is slightly in favour of the elder generation. 

 

How can you not quite grasp the struggle for younger generations by comparison? I'm a trainee solicitor and my wife is a secondary school teacher and we've only been able to buy a house with a 5% deposit because of the death of a family member. I don't really drink at all, I don't smoke, I drive an average car, and I don't really have any expensie hobbies, or jet off on any expensive holidays and we're hardly flushed with cash. Meanwhile my parents bought a 3 bed property in a lovely area on my Dad's wage alone 35 odd years ago. Plus those 50-70 year old who have a University degree and beyond will not be paying back the astronomical debt of the younger generations either.

My brother works 37 hour weeks on minimum wage and his wife works part time, also on minimum wage, have a son and have a mortgage on a 2 bed house. Living quite comfortably. 

 

My other brother is a single parent, living solely on what is given to him by the government, he won't be having thousands in the bank anytime soon, but he gets on far better than someone who doesn't have to lift a finger (but can) should, in my opinion. 

 

My dad 30 years ago could barely afford to feed his kids (sometimes couldn't!). 

 

I'm 30, and while me and my missus both work full time, we've afforded a house far bigger than we could possibly need, with the full intention of having it paid off before we hit 40.

 

This is why I struggle to understand. Are my family a bunch of lucky leprechauns? I doubt it. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Comparing 21 year olds just starting out to people at their wealth peak is a bit dodgy, isn't it? Of course people just getting into work aren't going to have a lot of wealth. People between 41-50 still have 10-20 years of what should be peak earning potential. I'd expect them to more than match the current figures at retirement age. 

 

And in all honesty, I'm 30, and I can't quite grasp why those in younger generations struggle financially. 

 

Trust me, mate, my generation had it easy compared to young people today.

 

I chose not to have a career because I wanted to travel instead, but any time I needed to earn some money I could be working the same day I started looking. None of this CV lark, no references, just 'giz a job', 'sure, when can you start?'. My heart bled for the lad in the Depression thread, jumping through hoops to get a job, and all to no avail. And as @David Guiza said, you could buy a house on a working man's wage (I say 'man' deliberately, women could afford to stay at home and run the home and still manage quite well on her husband's wage).

[Innovindil]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Trust me, mate, my generation had it easy compared to young people today.

 

I chose not to have a career because I wanted to travel instead, but any time I needed to earn some money I could be working the same day I started looking. None of this CV lark, no references, just 'giz a job', 'sure, when can you start?'. My heart bled for the lad in the Depression thread, jumping through hoops to get a job, and all to no avail. And as @David Guiza said, you could buy a house on a working man's wage (I say 'man' deliberately, women could afford to stay at home and run the home and still manage quite well on her husband's wage).

Not really an impossibility these days is it, I've known people to go country hopping and working while they do it. I've seen young people make bank travelling the world and taking a few Instagram shots along the way. 

 

Sure, this dude struggling to get a job is a downer, but without any knowledge of what he's actually doing, I can't draw anything from it. 

[ealingfox]

I would wager looking at the independently collected statistics is more productive than personal anecdotal evidence which is no doubt embellished one way or the other to suit a person's viewpoint.

[David Guiza]

20 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I'm not saying anything about the wider point but that is comfortably the worst way of looking at wealth 

I'm not an economist by any means, but I was replying to a post which said they've been alive longer and consequently would have more money, so I was breaking it down to a basic level in order to question how so fewer people can have over double the wealth of the other. 

 

Of course there are countless factors in play, but the disparity between 41-50 and 61-70 is incredible for a mere 20 year gap. Without meaning to start a whole 'old codgers ruining young peoples future' debate again, it is insulting when some people in that age bracket tell the younger generations to put up and shut up. 

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

My brother works 37 hour weeks on minimum wage and his wife works part time, also on minimum wage, have a son and have a mortgage on a 2 bed house. Living quite comfortably. 

 

My other brother is a single parent, living solely on what is given to him by the government, he won't be having thousands in the bank anytime soon, but he gets on far better than someone who doesn't have to lift a finger (but can) should, in my opinion. 

 

My dad 30 years ago could barely afford to feed his kids (sometimes couldn't!). 

 

I'm 30, and while me and my missus both work full time, we've afforded a house far bigger than we could possibly need, with the full intention of having it paid off before we hit 40.

 

This is why I struggle to understand. Are my family a bunch of lucky leprechauns? I doubt it. 

I don't know your indivual circumstnaces, but from my experience I tend to find that those who have owned a house for a couple of years at my age (27) have either done so through working from the age of 16, gifts from parents or having lived with their parents until their early to mid to even late 20s, but not everybody has those options available to them. My wife went to a Russell Group Univeristy and once she graduated she had to rent because there was no option to go back and live with her parents, the average rental price in her region was around £550/600 p/m. 

 

If you're not from a well off background and go to Univeristy or go travelling etc after finishing school then it's difficult to get onto the ladder within less than a number of years, particularly in comparison to 30/40 years ago. Both my parents travelled the world before they bought a house and didn't really struggle to do so either. The statistics don't lie, there are countless articles, reports, studies about the subject that can't all be wrong, can they? All these people below the age of 30 can't be lazy?

 

Assuming you are reasonable local you also have the benefit of living in a very affordable city, even if you travel just 30 odd miles down the M69 (beyond Coventry) you're looking at £250,000+ for a 2/3 bed house. 

 

 

[Buce]

23 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Not really an impossibility these days is it, I've known people to go country hopping and working while they do it. I've seen young people make bank travelling the world and taking a few Instagram shots along the way. 

 

Sure, this dude struggling to get a job is a downer, but without any knowledge of what he's actually doing, I can't draw anything from it. 

 

No, it's not an impossibility, just a lot more difficult.

 

I also seem to recall you didn't go to uni? If I had chosen to go, I'd have been paid to do it, not saddled with a debt the size of a small mortgage. No one is saying it's impossible to get along these days - obviously you manage fine - but it is undoubtedly more difficult than it was fifty years ago for the 'baby boomers'. That's beyond dispute.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I'm not an economist by any means, but I was replying to a post which said they've been alive longer and consequently would have more money, so I was breaking it down to a basic level in order to question how so fewer people can have over double the wealth of the other. 

 

Of course there are countless factors in play, but the disparity between 41-50 and 61-70 is incredible for a mere 20 year gap. Without meaning to start a whole 'old codgers ruining young peoples future' debate again, it is insulting when some people in that age bracket tell the younger generations to put up and shut up. 

 

 

Yeah but summing up working years essentially relies on an assumption that wealth accumulation is linear or at least somewhere closer to linear than is ever realistic. The 41-50 figure probably does look towards the low end of expectations but a 20 year period at that stage could see large wealth increases. It only takes an average return of about 3.5% a year to double wealth in a 20 year period. In that 20 year period you hit max earnings and your liabilities probably start to decrease so you're accumulating more and you essentially have increasing returns because the more you have the more you accumulate, plus increasingly these days its a period to come into some inheritance.

 

I think there's definitely issues with the intergenerational divide and the social contract such that our generation (27 and 23) can have gripes but I can't be having this that we have it worse than those long before us. That might (idk) be true if your view of the world is only financial but otherwise I get a little embarrassed by it. Only anecdotal but most of the people I'm surrounded by have inflated expectations and no consideration of trade-offs. 

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No, it's not an impossibility, just a lot more difficult.

 

I also seem to recall you didn't go to uni? If I had chosen to go, I'd have been paid to do it, not saddled with a debt the size of a small mortgage. No one is saying it's impossible to get along these days - obviously you manage fine - but it is undoubtedly more difficult than it was fifty years ago for the 'baby boomers'. That's beyond dispute.

I didn't go to uni, no. I went to college that I paid for out of my own pocket while learning. Some £4500~/year for 4 years. 

 

27 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I'm not an economist by any means, but I was replying to a post which said they've been alive longer and consequently would have more money, so I was breaking it down to a basic level in order to question how so fewer people can have over double the wealth of the other. 

 

Of course there are countless factors in play, but the disparity between 41-50 and 61-70 is incredible for a mere 20 year gap. Without meaning to start a whole 'old codgers ruining young peoples future' debate again, it is insulting when some people in that age bracket tell the younger generations to put up and shut up. 

I don't know your indivual circumstnaces, but from my experience I tend to find that those who have owned a house for a couple of years at my age (27) have either done so through working from the age of 16, gifts from parents or having lived with their parents until their early to mid to even late 20s, but not everybody has those options available to them. My wife went to a Russell Group Univeristy and once she graduated she had to rent because there was no option to go back and live with her parents, the average rental price in her region was around £550/600 p/m. 

 

If you're not from a well off background and go to Univeristy or go travelling etc after finishing school then it's difficult to get onto the ladder within less than a number of years, particularly in comparison to 30/40 years ago. Both my parents travelled the world before they bought a house and didn't really struggle to do so either. The statistics don't lie, there are countless articles, reports, studies about the subject that can't all be wrong, can they? All these people below the age of 30 can't be lazy?

 

Assuming you are reasonable local you also have the benefit of living in a very affordable city, even if you travel just 30 odd miles down the M69 (beyond Coventry) you're looking at £250,000+ for a 2/3 bed house. 

 

 

 

Haven't said anyone is lazy, just getting that out there before all this blows up. But people do make poor choices. We could run around all day with anecdotal examples of why things are how they are. But I think we should probably just agree that there are too many factors to be going on with and that we disagree. Preferably before I get stabbed for using my phone at work. 

[David Guiza]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Yeah but summing up working years essentially relies on an assumption that wealth accumulation is linear or at least somewhere closer to linear than is ever realistic. The 41-50 figure probably does look towards the low end of expectations but a 20 year period at that stage could see large wealth increases. It only takes an average return of about 3.5% a year to double wealth in a 20 year period. In that 20 year period you hit max earnings and your liabilities probably start to decrease so you're accumulating more and you essentially have increasing returns because the more you have the more you accumulate, plus increasingly these days its a period to come into some inheritance.

 

I think there's definitely issues with the intergenerational divide and the social contract such that our generation (27 and 23) can have gripes but I can't be having this that we have it worse than those long before us. That might (idk) be true if your view of the world is only financial but otherwise I get a little embarrassed by it. Only anecdotal but most of the people I'm surrounded by have inflated expectations and no consideration of trade-offs. 

I agree with you in terms of yoru liabilities generally decreasing as you head into that age bracket, as that is generally the case with mortgages being paid off etc. In terms of age v wage however, looking at the average income statistics from 2016/17 from the national statistics database (the soonest I could find from a quick Google search) the maximum average earnings peaked at 49 and was below that of a 35 year old by the age of 60. 

 

I'm only speaking from a financial perspective. It's almost a certainty that the further you go into the future the safer and better standard of living you are generally likely to experience so of course young people today have it better in many ways. I think the infalted expectation is part of the naivity of youth, but on the flip side the cinicism of age undoubetedly makes some forget how difficult it can be for some people when they're younger.  

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I didn't go to uni, no. I went to college that I paid for out of my own pocket while learning. Some £4500~/year for 4 years. 

 

 

Haven't said anyone is lazy, just getting that out there before all this blows up. But people do make poor choices.

 

That's a bit patronizing, tbh.

 

And besides, that just reinforces my argument - in career terms, I got away with what might have been considered a 'poor choice' - when I was ready to settle down, I was able. I doubt it would be as easy to join the rat race at forty now.

 

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

We could run around all day with anecdotal examples of why things are how they are. But I think we should probably just agree that there are too many factors to be going on with and that we disagree. Preferably before I get stabbed for using my phone at work. 

 

There you go - nobody stabbed you at work back in my day.

Edited 2 July 2019 by Buce

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Countryfox said:

 

Sad day ...   

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

They should be ostracized until they are brought to heel, the same as South Africa was over apartheid.

 

 

As much as I agree with this and that whaling is horrible, as long as the Japanese aren't causing the whale species they hunt to fall into endangered numbers they can point at a million different instances of cruelty to animals in the course of commercial food-gathering around the world (whether hunting wild animals or rearing domesticated ones) and accuse anyone who questions them of hypocrisy...and I'm not entirely sure how that claim can be substantively refuted.

 

 

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Got to agree with this. Interest rates were generally much higher 30 years ago, and expectations were much lower. We used to live in a crappy old ‘ouse with ‘oles in the roof but we were ‘appy.

 

Fact is, if you haven’t reached those sort of wealth levels by retirement, you are probably not going to have a very pleasant one. I’m absolute sure that today’s young will feel exactly the same by that age. Certainly up to the age of 30 I had a net wealth of zero.

 

Having said that, there do appear to be environmental, economic and resource issues that could well make the future much more uncomfortable for everyone, young or old, except the very rich.

 

 

I think this is a quite big thing in the way that a lot of young people think right now tbh. There's a certain fatalism there from the idea that they have next to no real political power, and by the time they're in a position to really affect things it'll be too late and shortly thereafter the only economy left will be the one where you shank the guy next to you for his tin of beans - so why bother saving for the future anyway?

 

Of course, it's not entirely accurate in that there are things that could be done, but I think it goes some way towards explaining why some younger folks aren't even bothering with accumulating wealth.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

As much as I agree with this and that whaling is horrible, as long as the Japanese aren't causing the whale species they hunt to fall into endangered numbers they can point at a million different instances of cruelty to animals in the course of commercial food-gathering around the world (whether hunting wild animals or rearing domesticated ones) and accuse anyone who questions them of hypocrisy...and I'm not entirely sure how that claim can be substantively refuted.

 

Of course, but whales are highly sentient creatures with the mental capacity of a small child. Even meat eaters would see the wrong in eating a child - no different imo.

[Nick]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Of course, but whales are highly sentient creatures with the mental capacity of a small child. Even meat eaters would see the wrong in eating a child - no different imo.

MMMmmmmm child.

 

Can never decide between gravy or pepper sauce though.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Of course, but whales are highly sentient creatures with the mental capacity of a small child. Even meat eaters would see the wrong in eating a child - no different imo.

Pigs also display pretty remarkable mental abilities. A lot of humans make bacon out of them all the same.

 

Believe me, I'm with you on the practice being utterly barbarous - I just can't think of a way of decrying it however without accurate accusations of hypocrisy being levelled.