Have the Boomers Pinched Their Children’s Futures? - with Lord David Willetts

[ReformedCharacter]

Not sure if this is the best board for this, but it may be of interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A

RC

[JohnB]

It would be of more interest if you had posted a summary rather than just a bald link.

[Lootman]

It would be of more interest if you had posted a summary rather than just a bald link.

An executive summary would be useful although I have heard a sufficient number of these attacks on Boomers here and elsewhere to be able to guess what the main talking points are.

I am not sure how helpful it is to juice age wars any more than race or gender wars.

[XFool]

...My first reaction: "Oh, is he still banging on about that?"

[BullDog]

I suspect that the answer is yes. I think we have been badly letdown by an overly tribal political system where those in power are far too keen to kick economic can (decisions) down the road and blame others. The next couple of generations are going to pay dearly for the gross economic mismanagement of the last few decades.

Myself, I've done my level best to ensure my two kids are as comfortable as possible within my means.

[ReformedCharacter]

An executive summary would be useful although I have heard a sufficient number of these attacks on Boomers here and elsewhere to be able to guess what the main talking points are.

I am not sure how helpful it is to juice age wars any more than race or gender wars.

I didn't interpret the lecture as any sort of attack, more an explanation of how we got here and implications for future policy.

RC

[UncleEbenezer]

...My first reaction: "Oh, is he still banging on about that?"

The original thesis has passed its usefulness.

When he first came out with that story, he performed a nifty sleight of hand in his definition of "boomer". By lumping in those born in the early 1960s with his own generation, he included a "scapegoat" cohort who were, at the time, far enough from retirement to lose some privileges as payment for his own cohort's fortune. Nowadays that scapegoat generation is itself near to retirement age (despite that having been pushed back), making it politically much harder to target with further measures.

[Lootman]

When he first came out with that story, he performed a nifty sleight of hand in his definition of "boomer". By lumping in those born in the early 1960s with his own generation, he included a "scapegoat" cohort who were, at the time, far enough from retirement to lose some privileges as payment for his own cohort's fortune.

I have a friend who was born in early 1965. He gets disproportionately annoyed if anyone refers to him as a Boomer. And yet if he were just 6 months older then he would fit into the "classic" definition: born between 1946 and 1964.

My wife was born in the summer of 1964 and she feels no such stigma about the designation.

[UncleEbenezer]

the "classic" definition: born between 1946 and 1964.

So he's got you firmly on his Agenda. By what measure is that the classic definition?

I first heard the term back in the 1960s, around age five and my first days of walking to school. From my mother, sometime when I was a bit scared/upset after being jostled by some thoughtless teenagers going to the big school. The baby-boomers were those then-scary teenagers - born post-war when the soldiers came home - who cared only for themselves. As I grew up and learned of their generation's rebellious youth culture with hippydom, "swinging sixties", drugs and all those things my own generation reacted against, those were always the "boomers". In the 1980s they were yuppies, etc.

Half a lifetime later and one of them goes and labels my own cohort as "boomers" alongside his own, and gets all the mindshare! Now his story has become "classic"!

[Lootman]

the "classic" definition: born between 1946 and 1964.

So he's got you firmly on his Agenda. By what measure is that the classic definition?

I first heard the term back in the 1960s, around age five and my first days of walking to school. From my mother, sometime when I was a bit scared/upset after being jostled by some thoughtless teenagers going to the big school. The baby-boomers were those then-scary teenagers - born post-war when the soldiers came home - who cared only for themselves. As I grew up and learned of their generation's rebellious youth culture with hippydom, "swinging sixties", drugs and all those things my own generation reacted against, those were always the "boomers". In the 1980s they were yuppies, etc.

Half a lifetime later and one of them goes and labels my own cohort as "boomers" alongside his own, and gets all the mindshare! Now his story has become "classic"!

Dunno but it seems reasonable to peg the start of the "Boom" as 1946 as that was when those soldiers came home.

The end date is more debatable but by 1964 those same soldiers were 40 or so, and less motivated or fecund. That was also around when the music changed

[redsturgeon]

That was also around when the music changed

If you ignore the birth of rock and roll in the mid 50s and the "day the music died" in 1959 or that by then the Beatles had been together for four years and the Stones for 2 years then perhaps the music "changed" in 1964 but the evidence is against that particular year as the watershed.

John

[Spet0789]

It would be of more interest if you had posted a summary rather than just a bald link.

An executive summary would be useful although I have heard a sufficient number of these attacks on Boomers here and elsewhere to be able to guess what the main talking points are.

I am not sure how helpful it is to juice age wars any more than race or gender wars.

Why not devote 45 minutes to watching it?

Personally, I found Willett’s book on this topic very compelling (as did my Aunt, who is a boomer).

In a nutshell, his argument is that the conventional wisdom was that if you were born into a large age cohort you would be disadvantaged (competition for schools places, jobs, and so on). In fact, the reverse has happened due to the political and market power of the large cohort. This can be seen in the data in a number of different ways. One example is government spending. When that cohort were in their peak earning years, taxes were cut. Now they are in their dependent years, taxes on those of working age are being hiked to support them.

[Newroad]

Hi RedSturgeon.

I would have thought the definition is somewhat literal - when did the (Post WWII) baby boom finish. It probably varies a little by country, but in the UK, the birth rate peaked in 1963 as I understand it, so not too far off the mark.

Then the next/derived question, pinching their children's futures etc. This is probably in the eye of the beholder and how one frames the question. Further, I have not watched the link. However, I have for a long time come down on the broadly on the side of "yes" as an answer.

IMO, the Baby Boomers, through their voting power, led various electorates in putting in place systems that were not sustainable, predominantly in relatively low taxation, saving for the future etc vs benefits expected. This was fine when lots of Baby Boomers had to service the war ravaged rump of Great and Silent Generations, but was always going to run aground at some point once the situation reversed (vis a vis Generation X, The Millenials and now Generation Z supporting the Baby Boomers and the few remaining Silent Generation).

These systems are going to cause inter-generational problems if they aren't already, e.g. the hollowing out of countries (via emigration) which don't or can't address the generational issues caused.

Regards, Newroad

[Lootman]

Then the next/derived question, pinching their children's futures etc. This is probably in the eye of the beholder and how one frames the question. Further, I have not watched the link. However, I have for a long time come down on the broadly on the side of "yes" as an answer.

There are lots of ways I could argue that kids today have it better than we did.

For example when I started work after University in 1975, my top rate of income tax was 35%, and that on only a "new graduate" salary. My kids pay 20% tax in their jobs now.

Holidays back then were taken by car with 4/5 of us packed into it, and we camped. My kids now are always jetting off to overseas locales, near and far, staying in hotels, and eating in restaurants rather than beans on a campfire.

My kids have expensive smart phones and devices and are online 24/7. I used to write letters.

I could go on but you get the idea. You have to take into account quality of life as well as just the numbers.

[Adamski]

Kids today certainly do NOT have it better than we did.

Having an £1000 iPhone is a luxury as is foreign holidays, but nothing like luxury of owning your own house.

Im not a 'boomer', bit younger, born in the early 70s. But I could easily buy first house with a modest trainee accountant salary. That was 1994. So ive had 29 years of house price boom. And since 2008 to 2021, 13 years of stocks bull market helping pensions and investments.

Today young uns have to rent unless have well off and generous parents. Many rent for life. It's very tough for them. And no easy answers to do it fairly but something should be done to level the playing field.

[Lootman]

Today young uns have to rent unless have well off and generous parents.

But surely the argument being made is that these kids DO have rich parents!

Or at least richer parents.

[Spet0789]

Today young uns have to rent unless have well off and generous parents.

But surely the argument being made is that these kids DO have rich parents!

Or at least richer parents.

I think the issue is how society has put younger people at a disadvantage. Obviously the extent to which one cares depends on ones politics, but it's no defence to the charge to point to the Bank of Mum and Dad, inheritance and so on. If you are lucky enough to have wealthy parents, great. But there's no question that young people who don't are pretty stuffed these days!

[Alaric]

. But I could easily buy first house with a modest trainee accountant salary. That was 1994.

Six years earlier might have been a different story. Having grown rapidly, house prices at first stabilised and then crashed from about 1989 onwards, They didn't start increasing again until after 1997.

[SimonS]

An executive summary would be useful although I have heard a sufficient number of these attacks on Boomers here and elsewhere to be able to guess what the main talking points are.

I am not sure how helpful it is to juice age wars any more than race or gender wars.

Why not devote 45 minutes to watching it?

Personally, I found Willett’s book on this topic very compelling (as did my Aunt, who is a boomer).

In a nutshell, his argument is that the conventional wisdom was that if you were born into a large age cohort you would be disadvantaged (competition for schools places, jobs, and so on). In fact, the reverse has happened due to the political and market power of the large cohort. This can be seen in the data in a number of different ways. One example is government spending. When that cohort were in their peak earning years, taxes were cut. Now they are in their dependent years, taxes on those of working age are being hiked to support them.

In a nutshell, there are huge elements that are missing from his discussion. Using his figures the population of the UK would be around 40 million, instead it is (according to the census) around 75 million and according to the supermarkets around 85 million ( the census covers the number of people 'counted', the supermarkets measure the number of people buying food and hence the idea that people destroy 30% of the food they buy to make the two figures compatible) The fact that immigration currently replaces somewhere between one third and one half of the total increase makes his figures a nonsense. One could just a viably point out that it isn't those immediate descendants of post war Britain that have stolen the Futures, but the large number of immigrants who have arrived during the deskilling and comparative lowering of wages ( yes, wages went up but not as quickly as the expectation of the standard of living, So yes. I may have bought my own house at 30, but I did not have the money to furnish it, heat it (no central heating), maintain it properly and after paying the mortgage and travel fares to work had just over £20 a month for food and bills.

There are lots of 'forgotten nastinesses in his theory, summed up in his histrionic patronising aimed at providing "them" with a largely silent target to blame and demand reparations from.

Deeply unpleasant propaganda by an evil man.

[Spet0789]

Why not devote 45 minutes to watching it?

Personally, I found Willett’s book on this topic very compelling (as did my Aunt, who is a boomer).

In a nutshell, his argument is that the conventional wisdom was that if you were born into a large age cohort you would be disadvantaged (competition for schools places, jobs, and so on). In fact, the reverse has happened due to the political and market power of the large cohort. This can be seen in the data in a number of different ways. One example is government spending. When that cohort were in their peak earning years, taxes were cut. Now they are in their dependent years, taxes on those of working age are being hiked to support them.

In a nutshell, there are huge elements that are missing from his discussion. Using his figures the population of the UK would be around 40 million, instead it is (according to the census) around 75 million and according to the supermarkets around 85 million ( the census covers the number of people 'counted', the supermarkets measure the number of people buying food and hence the idea that people destroy 30% of the food they buy to make the two figures compatible) The fact that immigration currently replaces somewhere between one third and one half of the total increase makes his figures a nonsense. One could just a viably point out that it isn't those immediate descendants of post war Britain that have stolen the Futures, but the large number of immigrants who have arrived during the deskilling and comparative lowering of wages ( yes, wages went up but not as quickly as the expectation of the standard of living, So yes. I may have bought my own house at 30, but I did not have the money to furnish it, heat it (no central heating), maintain it properly and after paying the mortgage and travel fares to work had just over £20 a month for food and bills.

There are lots of 'forgotten nastinesses in his theory, summed up in his histrionic patronising aimed at providing "them" with a largely silent target to blame and demand reparations from.

Deeply unpleasant propaganda by an evil man.

To be clear, you’re accusing him of evilly blaming boomers when actually it’s all the fault of immigrants?