This just reinforces a particular idea to me. Restricting the vote and ability to engage in politics, whether that be at a national or local level, to those who can contribute to the future, whether that is by participation in the economy, or by raising families. Both are not, one by definition and one by biology for most, with a few exceptions, able to be done by the retired. I suspect future mass enfranchisement liberal democracies will be moribund and unable to compete with another nation that successfully throws off such vile shackles of the past, ceteris paribus that is.
I have just discovered this post - really interesting. What I'm struggling to quite follow is how boomers whose 'house is their pension' access that money in a way that means they are affected by falling house prices. I totally get why outright home ownership is good for retirees - they no longer need to pay for housing. But surely that's the crux of the income issue, rather than any direct financial change from falling or rising prices (though which of course will have a phycological impact)? The asset itself is surely more insurance against catastrophic social care costs than it is a pension? Or am I missing something? I know about equity release, but I always thought that was a niche interest.
Minor quibble upon rereading this post: Larkin did not get laid - 1963 was 'rather too late for' him. I imagine this was because he was too busy insulting Charlie Parker and tricking the country into thinking he was a great poet.
Also an issue that the old don't want to sell their homes, and generally refuse to do so unless forced. Population of London has gone up over the last 25 years from 7 to 9 million, and house sales per year have gone down (very, very roughly, see https://www.plumplot.co.uk/London-property-transactions.html) from 150,000 to 100,000. Add in the fact that newbuilds are disproportionately flats, and the supply of housing that you might want to move into as you have a family - the sort of properties today's old people moved into thirty or forty years ago - is abysmal.
And if people fundamentally just want to live in their homes until they die, with those homes and their neighbourhoods unchanging, even if that means not having any money, then changing SDLT rates or introducing street votes might have less of an effect than is hoped.
I think the strength of that desire is underestimated by younger people. There are many old people, including some I know, who prefer to be poor in their own home rather than become rich by selling it and moving somewhere smaller and more comfortable. I'm not sure they're wrong, or that I'd make a different decision in a few decades' time.
This just reinforces a particular idea to me. Restricting the vote and ability to engage in politics, whether that be at a national or local level, to those who can contribute to the future, whether that is by participation in the economy, or by raising families. Both are not, one by definition and one by biology for most, with a few exceptions, able to be done by the retired. I suspect future mass enfranchisement liberal democracies will be moribund and unable to compete with another nation that successfully throws off such vile shackles of the past, ceteris paribus that is.
I have just discovered this post - really interesting. What I'm struggling to quite follow is how boomers whose 'house is their pension' access that money in a way that means they are affected by falling house prices. I totally get why outright home ownership is good for retirees - they no longer need to pay for housing. But surely that's the crux of the income issue, rather than any direct financial change from falling or rising prices (though which of course will have a phycological impact)? The asset itself is surely more insurance against catastrophic social care costs than it is a pension? Or am I missing something? I know about equity release, but I always thought that was a niche interest.
Minor quibble upon rereading this post: Larkin did not get laid - 1963 was 'rather too late for' him. I imagine this was because he was too busy insulting Charlie Parker and tricking the country into thinking he was a great poet.
Great article, thank you
World's smallest 🎻, seriously boomers suck and it's clear they are intent on ruining the world
Also an issue that the old don't want to sell their homes, and generally refuse to do so unless forced. Population of London has gone up over the last 25 years from 7 to 9 million, and house sales per year have gone down (very, very roughly, see https://www.plumplot.co.uk/London-property-transactions.html) from 150,000 to 100,000. Add in the fact that newbuilds are disproportionately flats, and the supply of housing that you might want to move into as you have a family - the sort of properties today's old people moved into thirty or forty years ago - is abysmal.
And if people fundamentally just want to live in their homes until they die, with those homes and their neighbourhoods unchanging, even if that means not having any money, then changing SDLT rates or introducing street votes might have less of an effect than is hoped.
I think the strength of that desire is underestimated by younger people. There are many old people, including some I know, who prefer to be poor in their own home rather than become rich by selling it and moving somewhere smaller and more comfortable. I'm not sure they're wrong, or that I'd make a different decision in a few decades' time.