Under-45s hit ‘dramatically’ harder by recession, ESRI finds
This just reinforces my view that the baby boomers aka Generation Greed, have done untold economic damage to the world and at the same time managed to pass the pain onto the next generation.
Generation Greed - taking care on No 1 since 1946.
Stark, but lots of votes here
They could have taken a bit more care where they put the boundary. I am not sure 45 is where things magically turn from penury to riches.
and in other news, Pope Francis announced today that he is Catholic
Good to see the ESRI researching the very obvious
Here’s the Research Note: esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RN20130104.pdf
It has a little more detail than the IT article, though not much more.
It won’t last because the stakes have gone so high that anything could topple it, such as rampant youth unemployment.
I believe this is what’s known as a slow news day !
A couple of weeks ago we had MABs saying that the majority of people seeking their assistance were over 50s. This was incorrectly run with by some in the media at them time that took this to mean that age cohort were the worst hit by the bubble and recession.
I said at the time that the younger people in trouble are probably more resourceful at finding solutions to their problems. They know how to access websites such as citizens information, revenue, MABS, TPP, AAM etc. But also I’d expect they’re quicker to realise if they can’t afford a place, so rent it out and move back home with mammy and daddy or emigrate. The older generation can’t exactly move back in with their parents.
That’s my long winded way of saying, this story doesn’t surprise me in the least. As FreeFallin said researching the bloody obvious.
Has been obvious for a long time but no harm having a report circulating in the general domain that confirms it.
The fate of the baby boomers doesn’t bother me. By the time I’m old and frail they’ll all be dead.
I’m more concerned about what the under-25s are doing. I’ll be needing their productivity to finance my old age, one way or another.
Figure 1 from the report shows that average net household income was 100k for under 45s in 2007.
I’m assuming diposable income + expenditure = net income?
Can that be right? Near 100% employment, dual incomes, construction wages, Bertie dishing out the cash, even so still it seems too high. It’s not a surprise it’d be down.
The average net household income for over 45s was around 60k, if it’s taking in pensioners that also seems a little high. But with lower incomes they’d have been less exposed to the tax increases than higher earners.
Despite the headline the figure also shows that for the latest data net incomes for 45- are still higher than 45+.
What it doesn’t say is that the u45’s were the ones that benefited most from the salary inflation in the boom. Within a few years of working I was earning the same as my parents.
On the contrary, its was the boomers who benefited most.
Holding positions higher up the food chain meant that the salary inflation required to attract younger, better educated staff pushed them far further up the salary scale than their abilities alone would ever have provided. We bumped them up because their sense of entitlement couldnt allow teachers or middle managers to be earning less than their recent pupils/recruits.
I’d understood disposable income - expenditure = saving (borrowing), i.e. households are borrowing where the red line is below the solid blue line or saving when the red line is above the solid blue line.
MABS said that most of the people coming into them looking for debt solutions were older but since debt in arrears isn’t being called in, they are getting by just fine for now.
We’ll be needing their cooperation.
That sounds right, figures make more sense that way. Thanks.
Yes and no. Given demographic trends it is possible that rent-seeking old duffers may become the tyrannical majority.
They just stop paying rent, they’re seeing it work for mortgage holders who only make token payments.