The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Busting the boomers > Comments

Busting the boomers : Comments

By Damian Jeffree, published 27/11/2006

Baby boomers may have to give up some of their ill-gotten gains to achieve a more equitable future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
You have no idea at all.

Today has more opportunities than evver before.

The price of homes may be higher, but the ability to leverage is larger, and the 10 or 20% deposit is no longer needed as we can borrow up to 106%.

Property prices have statistically at least doubled every 10 years and have done so since the white invasion. This will not ever change and i wont even bother to explain why. Property may be less affordable at this point in the cycle, but when you quoted your 4 times median wages, what where the interest costs then?

And as for the sour grapes on baby boomers, wealth from baby boomers will be transferred eventually,

Why dont you have a real go yourself instead of whinging at people who have finally got the wolves off the door. I suggest many baby boomers had very modest childhoods and good on them for accruing wealth?

I suggest we get someone to submit article with more of a realisitic understanding. Do some homework first hey.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 27 November 2006 11:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stomont you missed a great time. The 1960s were great, easy sex, no AIDS, every one stoned at Sunbury, racing drunk down tram tracks on Friday night, great demos against Vietnam war, really low unemployment, amazingly cheap inner city housing - yeah!

In the 1960s and early 1970s the banks wouldn't provide mortgages for properties over 35 years old or to women.

Yes its a real problem that house prices are so high that its hard to imagine average wage earners ever being able to buy a house in a capital city and clearly that will change as the supply of dwellings over takes demand. Whether that happens slowly or fast - time will tell.

Baby boomers have invested in real estate because its more transparent than shares, warrants, futures and stapled securities and since the 1960s its been clear to see the way its increased in value while during the same time the stock market hasn't performed as well.
Posted by billie, Monday, 27 November 2006 12:10:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another salvo is launched in the intergenerational slanging match. Bravo.

It's times like these that the demographics of posters interest me greatly. As indicated in earlier posts, it would be interesting to know how many are comfortably ensconced baby boomers, making what they believe are genuinely objective comments from the comfort of their lounge room... but I digress....

It's good to see a few articles pointing out the other side of the argument.
With the boomer generation so heavily established in all spheres of public life, I don't see how anyone can deny the fact that they are those who are in power. What's more, it's a cardinal rule that those in power tend to look after their own interests first... but I'm still digressing....

In regard to this article, I suppose it's reasonable to point out that this generation has plenty of opportunities (though not everyone want's to make their living as a miner, and that will be my last digression I promise) but this article is about house prices.

House prices people. And put simply, the young generation is being screwed by the situation - and while that situation may not have been created by the boomers, I bet they're not dissatisfied by it.

What's more, sooner or later something will have to be done about it, and if it results in a fairer result, then I say, all to the good.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 27 November 2006 12:16:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stomont

You sound envious and lazy.

Go to realestate.com.au and you will find hundreds of units and houses available under $250,000 and many well under that price.

You can have some of the action if you want but you have to make an effort. Working is part of that as is doing without some non-essentials. Many people spend more on their tech gadgets, phones and entertainment than they would if they bought a unit.

It is silly to try to compare yourself with people who are at the end of their life and earning. You should also be aware that just because an older person's house may be valued higher because development has overtaken it, it is still just a place for them to live and the higher valuation just means that their rates have gone up. They have to live somewhere or would you begrudge them that too?

Well that is about it for free advice, however I sense that it will be wasted on you but not perhaps on others (who no doubt you will be jealous of too in time).
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 27 November 2006 12:26:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please all not Damian's qualifications at the bottom of the article, the defence rests.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 27 November 2006 12:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon Shonga - Equity Trader and an Investment Banker? I would have thought that would make Damien doubly qualified to talk about market predation/speculation....

I find it interesting that generation labelling for marketing purposes has become part of our language though. Some TV marketing executive in America one day worked out that commercials just weren't selling to people born after {insert date from 1960-1969 here} and labelled them Gen-X, and for those born from 1940 odd to that date as Baby-Boomers. Seems war makes people toey.

There is some merit in this generational theory though. Life experiences will be to some degree dictated by the social policy of the day.

A striking example being access to safe employment because of trade protection that existed before the Button Plan of the Keating/Hawke governments. Today's kids instead have to compete against the sweat shops of Asia.

There is also a marked difference in work and leisure activity between the diffent age cohorts, which can easily be seen by comparing people of different ages in similar jobs and how they interact with their boss.

It must be remembered that this theory is a marketing tool. There is no typical 'Boomer' or Gen-Xer or Gen-Yer. Not all Boomers are "Give Me", not all Xers are Lazy, and not all Yers are Tech-Heads. See also http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/downloads/Public_Libraries_Unit/the_abc_of_xyz_generational_diversity_at_work.doc.
Posted by Narcissist, Monday, 27 November 2006 3:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy