So, one thing these gen-Y-complains-about-the-boomers screeds always miss is how life was for the boomers at the same age. Home ownership also wasn't huge when the boomers were 20something. I'm a gen-Xer myself, and I always find it amusing when someone just out of tertiary education is complaining that they don't have the accumulated wealth of someone in their 50s, who has been working for the past few decades; that people somehow find it wrong that someone who has barely started their working life somehow doesn't own a string of properties.
Keep in mind also that negative gearing was brought in to try and stimulate house-building. It has overstayed it's purpose, but it wasn't brought in as a 'fuck the young' measure.
No, we're complaining about baby boomers complaining that we just need to "work harder". The cost of houses (relative to inflation/wages) in their 20-30's was multitudes cheaper. Anyone who thinks the young have it nearly as good as baby boomers hasn't done the maths.
> Anyone who thinks the young have it nearly as good as baby boomers hasn't done the maths.
Damn, you guys have a lack of empathy. Life isn't absolutely perfect for you, so whine whine whine.
Medicare?
Gay rights?
Indigenous rights?
Advances in medicine?
Equal rights for gender? Same wage regardless of gender? Women even being able to work at what they want?
End of the WAP and far greater multiculturalism?
Strong public attitude shifts against domestic violence?
Global travel? Cheap travel?
Legal abortions?
Working in airconditioned offices instead of brick factories being the norm?
Cheaper food and clothing? Much cheaper technical doodads. Colour television as standard?
Vastly greater entertainment offerings, and cheaper too? Entertainment on demand?
Food revolution? Coffee revolution? Bars closing later than 6pm?
No conscription?
Safer vehicles?
The bloody internet?
But no, you guys can only see the one issue right now about house pricing. ONE problem, and bam! it's 'worse than the boomers ever had it'. Whine whine whine; it's the only thing the young have to say about the difference between the generations. Show some empathy, and have a go at understanding how it was for the people before you. Then you'll better understand how things got to be that way today - and you'll start to see a lot of the things that you take for granted today are considered luxuries by the boomers, and you'll start to understand why they say "work harder". Whether or not they're right is a different thing, but jeez, the whining.
Instead of just focusing on this one issue and assuming they had it better than you, tell them to shut up and show them that you are already working hard - show them the hours or the effort. But most importantly, try and understand where they're coming from, why they say what they do. Show some damn empathy instead of just complaining that you didn't get dealt a perfect hand.
I see that my comment inspired some emotions. I think I should clarify - I absolutely know that I have it better than baby boomers in almost every way, but I wish they would lay off telling me how housing now is "not that bad". Trust me, I'd rather try and think of a solution than sit on my hands and say "why me!". But I'm Australian, whining is in my blood I guess.
I should apologise, it's not directed at you specifically. I've just been hearing this complaint for several years now and it's really getting on my tits these days. I generally mean everything in that comment, I just could have phrased it a bit less like we're face to face in a pub.
My apologies for that.
And yes, I have a double whammy - I'm Australian, and I'm a sysadmin, so I really like to complain :)
The weird thing, is why have houses become considerably more expensive in AU, the UK, NZ, CA and a few parts of the US while most things have become much better?
The finance thing, on negative gearings and capital gains isn't enough. And why does it do it now when negative gearing has been around in AU since 1915 and there was no negative gearing at all until the 1980s. But housing was much cheaper in the 1970s?
I think part of it is that household income has increased overall - women now work more often and at higher salaries than they used to, and other goods have generally become much cheaper. The leftover part, "housing + disposable income" is a larger proportion of the overall. As a result, people pump more money into the 'housing' bit - individually, it's 'have a bit less disposable income for a bit of a nicer place'. But at a demographic level, it'd put a lot more money into the market.
Totally a gut intuition, not supported by anything in particular. Things outside housing have become cheaper. And most people consume their full income in some way - I just think that housing seems to be taking up the slack from other things being cheaper.
Actually I think the main cause is overly concessional capital gains tax discounts, which are exacerbated by, and amplify, the effects of untaxed land rents. By any conceivable measure, including price to personal income, residential property is about 4-5 times more expensive compared to 15 years ago.
The second graph is especially telling. The value of an investment asset is determined by how much income it is expected to produce in the future. Yet even though rents (i.e. the return to property) stayed flat, the price of the asset quadrupled.
And no, at the time it was brought in it wasn't intended as a 'fuck the young' measure. It was more, 'fuck the poor'. However, a 15 year head start on wealth accumulation and a selfish refusal by the baby-boomers to entertain the idea of fixing this glaring inequity (among many others) means it has since morphed in to 'fuck the young'.
And I don't want to own a string of properties. I just want to own one. I like the idea of owning my own shelter, as a form of insurance against homelessness.
Keep in mind also that negative gearing was brought in to try and stimulate house-building. It has overstayed it's purpose, but it wasn't brought in as a 'fuck the young' measure.