Times article claim that Waspi women are tone deaf and should read the room

Evan Davis has an article today on the generational divide. He poses that it’s a subset of late Boomers, of which he’s one, who have benefitted most and also the problem isn’t intergenerational, it’s the lack of economic growth over the past two decades that’s causing this divide.

I am not knowledgable about economies, so maybe others here will beg to differ with him!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6pyk7e3w4o

Mollygo

However true your figures may be, it’s no consolation to those who don’t fit into your lucky retirees.
It’s like listening to Keir Starmer telling us how well the NHS is doing now whilst you’re sitting at home still waiting for a consultation, then for a referral, to maybe get some Treatment.
Congratulations to the lucky ones and tough on those who don't fit those criteria but can just enjoy hearing that others do.

It’s about averages though, that people write these articles, isn’t it?
There are always going to be exceptions, but to the younger people in the UK that’s what they look at, just as we all generalise about those we don’t know.

SueDonim

Evan Davis has an article today on the generational divide. He poses that it’s a subset of late Boomers, of which he’s one, who have benefitted most and also the problem isn’t intergenerational, it’s the lack of economic growth over the past two decades that’s causing this divide.

I am not knowledgable about economies, so maybe others here will beg to differ with him!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6pyk7e3w4o

I could contest that, as a 'late Boomer', arguing that the early ones had a 'better deal' with cheaper housing, mortgages paid off when interest rates rose (so could benefit from high interest on savings), a ready supply of council houses as a safety net, degrees that set them apart, pensions at 60 for women (often with SERPs to boost them), relatively secure employment, grammar schools etc.

I am deliberately generalising, but it's true that in my experience it is friends who are around ten years older than me (so mid to late 70s) who had all of those things and are enjoying cruises, golf and the stereotypical 'Boomer' lifestyles. My generation came of age in a time of very high unemployment, had comprehensive schools, high inflation and interest rates, increased SPA at a flat rate, low interest on savings, high mortgage rates and rents and so on.

So much is subjective, isn't it? Molly is right that not everyone fits the stereotype of their 'generation' anyway, or even their subset of it. I think that subdividing us into Marketing groupings was a cynical move to turn us against one another and see one another in terms of 'sets' rather than people.

I don’t know where I fit because I’m neither an early not a late boomer, all I know is I didn’t get my pension at 60, I’m still on the old pension, I experienced some of the good things but also high mortgage rates, stagnant wages, and I’m still working at over 70, and not to fund cruises. I’m seeing the gap between the old and the new pensions widen every year and quite frankly, I’m fed up. But I still think the younger generations have it much harder than we did.

Mollygo

However true your figures may be, it’s no consolation to those who don’t fit into your lucky retirees.
It’s like listening to Keir Starmer telling us how well the NHS is doing now whilst you’re sitting at home still waiting for a consultation, then for a referral, to maybe get some Treatment.
Congratulations to the lucky ones and tough on those who don't fit those criteria but can just enjoy hearing that others do.

But in any situation in life you can mention, some people benefit and some lose out.

I lost 12 years of pension because, I didn't stay 5 years in a job, so was given my pension payments back when I left, without interest or employers contributions. Later I worked part-time and part-timers couldn't join the pension scheme.

As we go through life we all win some and lose some

The wealthiest pensioners are those aged 65-74 though Doodledog. One of the main reasons is that although as you say there were lots of struggles for that age group (I am there too), pension schemes were then much more generous than they are today.

The UK receives the lowest paid state pension in Europe. And yet I think we are the 5th wealthiest country in the world. As pensioners we don't usually have the ability to increase our income. Whereas younger generations, if they're able to can find opportunities to boost their income.

Mollygo

However true your figures may be, it’s no consolation to those who don’t fit into your lucky retirees.
It’s like listening to Keir Starmer telling us how well the NHS is doing now whilst you’re sitting at home still waiting for a consultation, then for a referral, to maybe get some Treatment.
Congratulations to the lucky ones and tough on those who don't fit those criteria but can just enjoy hearing that others do.

However true your figures may be, it’s no consolation to those who don’t fit into your lucky retirees.
Absolutely spot on, Mollygo!

It’s like listening to Keir Starmer telling us how well the NHS is doing now whilst you’re sitting at home still waiting for a consultation, then for a referral, to maybe get some Treatment.

So well that I heard the other day that waiting times for some non-urgent surgeries eg joint replacements are now down to about 12 months, even less in some areas.
That makes my six years look like a figment of my imagination.

Thanks Allira.
But
In any situation you can mention doesn't make it better for those being told that others are in a better situation.

Mollygo

Thanks Allira.
But
In any situation you can mention doesn't make it better for those being told that others are in a better situation.

Apparently those on the old, lower State Pension are also in receipt of SERPS, Graduated Pension, Age Addition (for over 80s) etc.

Not all are.

Casdon

The wealthiest pensioners are those aged 65-74 though Doodledog. One of the main reasons is that although as you say there were lots of struggles for that age group (I am there too), pension schemes were then much more generous than they are today.

It would seem the oldest are weathiest, more years to diligently save. Silent generation, imo, was blessed in many ways. No high interest rates when purchasing homes, leading to high interest savings.

Basgetti

Looking at the prospects for our adult children, sorry, I agree with him.
The information was out there 🤷‍♀️

?

Casdon

The wealthiest pensioners are those aged 65-74 though Doodledog. One of the main reasons is that although as you say there were lots of struggles for that age group (I am there too), pension schemes were then much more generous than they are today.

'Wealthiest' and 'pensioners' are words that will never fit together. Ever.

Mollygo

Basgetti

Looking at the prospects for our adult children, sorry, I agree with him.
The information was out there 🤷‍♀️

The prospects for our adult children will be heavily affected by the increasing number who can’t or don't work.

Agreed.

The sheer number of younger people not in work affects all.

Casdon

The wealthiest pensioners are those aged 65-74 though Doodledog. One of the main reasons is that although as you say there were lots of struggles for that age group (I am there too), pension schemes were then much more generous than they are today.

They were if you were allowed to join them. I was 37 before I could join an occupational pension scheme (because I was on rolling academic contracts, which meant I didn't count as a permanent employee) so missed out on what would have been a decent pension, despite paying higher rate tax and a lot of NI.

This is why generalisations are a bit pointless, which is the point I was making. It's the same with old state pensions - some on them have far higher amounts than those on the NSP and others get less, but everyone talks as though their experience is the only one (although of course it is, to them).

I do appreciate that averages mean that there as many people below the average as there are above Doodledog, my point was really about the perception that older age groups are better off on average than recent retirees. Once retired, most people dip into their savings for major purchases, which means as they get older their capital diminishes I think. I don’t think that we can dispute that the average is just that, although our own experience may be very different.

Norah

Casdon

The wealthiest pensioners are those aged 65-74 though Doodledog. One of the main reasons is that although as you say there were lots of struggles for that age group (I am there too), pension schemes were then much more generous than they are today.

It would seem the oldest are weathiest, more years to diligently save. Silent generation, imo, was blessed in many ways. No high interest rates when purchasing homes, leading to high interest savings.

Mortgage interest rates were 17% in 1979, 15% in 1989 - which house owners born between 1945 and 1964 wouldn't have been affected by those?
In 2009, interest rates went below 1% and stayed there until 2022. Was that the years inflation was 11%? People with savings must've been hit by those
All this talk of wealthy pensioners is part of the divide and rule nonsense of our politicians. Many wealthy pensioners have gone without to pay their mortgage in an expensive part of UK because that's where their job was. Of course we've bigger pension pots than our children,we've stopped adding to it, whereas theirs isn't completed yet

I look at my family and worry about them. I had a workplace pension, some of them didn't. I look at pensioners in town who seem to be barely coping financially. We should all be concerned about vulnerable people

I don’t dispute what you say Chardy. I can though also understand why younger people see things the way they do. We all look through the lens of our own experience,

Chardy

Norah

Casdon

The wealthiest pensioners are those aged 65-74 though Doodledog. One of the main reasons is that although as you say there were lots of struggles for that age group (I am there too), pension schemes were then much more generous than they are today.

It would seem the oldest are weathiest, more years to diligently save. Silent generation, imo, was blessed in many ways. No high interest rates when purchasing homes, leading to high interest savings.

Mortgage interest rates were 17% in 1979, 15% in 1989 - which house owners born between 1945 and 1964 wouldn't have been affected by those?
In 2009, interest rates went below 1% and stayed there until 2022. Was that the years inflation was 11%? People with savings must've been hit by those
All this talk of wealthy pensioners is part of the divide and rule nonsense of our politicians. Many wealthy pensioners have gone without to pay their mortgage in an expensive part of UK because that's where their job was. Of course we've bigger pension pots than our children,we've stopped adding to it, whereas theirs isn't completed yet

I look at my family and worry about them. I had a workplace pension, some of them didn't. I look at pensioners in town who seem to be barely coping financially. We should all be concerned about vulnerable people

I said "silent generation" which ended as boomer group began.

Many pensioners would be in that group, interest on homes quite low, mortgages paid off, save as interest rates were higher.

Yes, our children haven't stopped adding to their pension pots.

Of course we worry about vulnerable people and climate change.

I am the silent generation(1928-1945). Born in 1943. We took out our first mortgage in 1969. Interest rates were then just over 7% and then went up and never got lower than that until the last few years of our successive mortgages around 2000.

Even if you were born in 1928, you were unlikely to have taken out a mortgage before 1950. Assuming you only ever had one mortgage. which would have been paid up in 1975-80, you would have had a mortgage on a variable rate and by 1975 interst rates were around 11%.

If like many of us they moved up the housing ladder and had mortgages until close to retirement, this would have taken them through all the high interest years.

All this talk of wealthy pensioners is part of the divide and rule nonsense of our politicians.

Chardy if you read GN posts it’s not just the politicians who follow the divide and rule mantra.

That article is spot on. I don't want my children being over burdened with tax, just to compensate 1950's women. The next generation won't be able to claim for a state pension at age 66 or under as those of us born before 1960 have done.

Mollygo

^All this talk of wealthy pensioners is part of the divide and rule nonsense of our politicians.^

Chardy if you read GN posts it’s not just the politicians who follow the divide and rule mantra.

Can you explain what you mean please Mollygo, are you saying that some Gransnetters are flaunting their wealth/poverty, or have I misunderstood?

notgran

That article is spot on. I don't want my children being over burdened with tax, just to compensate 1950's women. The next generation won't be able to claim for a state pension at age 66 or under as those of us born before 1960 have done.

Why would your children be overburdened with tax?

The money to pay the estimated £10 billion compensation is already sitting in the National Insurance Fund, part of the £60 billion George Osborne bragged he’d saved by accelerating the pace of equalisation. Level 3 compensation would be no more than £1,000. We’d be getting back a fraction of what we had lost, around £40,000 for some women like me who had to wait another six years for a pension they had expected to receive at 60.

Jeremy Hunt already gave £10 billon of that away as an NIC reduction from 12% to 8%. He gave £10 billion of our lost pension away as sweetener to get working age people to vote Tory in the 2024 election.

If the Treasury has to shore up the NIF as it is predicted to have to do by 2040, it will come from creating new money not from taxation. If inflation rises as result of all pensioners having too much money to spend and government raised taxation as a result, we would all pay more, pensioners included.

Stop believing the inter-generational warfare that it suits some unqualified journalists to stoke.

M0nica

I am the silent generation(1928-1945). Born in 1943. We took out our first mortgage in 1969. Interest rates were then just over 7% and then went up and never got lower than that until the last few years of our successive mortgages around 2000.

Even if you were born in 1928, you were unlikely to have taken out a mortgage before 1950. Assuming you only ever had one mortgage. which would have been paid up in 1975-80, you would have had a mortgage on a variable rate and by 1975 interst rates were around 11%.

If like many of us they moved up the housing ladder and had mortgages until close to retirement, this would have taken them through all the high interest years.

I'm part to silent generation. First mortgage late 50s.

Not everyone moves up the ladder, some never move house, a choice.

Of course some people move house, not all by choice.

Everyone is different, life is cruel to some.