Just in case you think that last post was typical Gen X/Y whingeing - to all you boomers out there who think you have escaped the wrath of the capitalist monster...

Exactly how is that working out for you? Are your super funds increasing in value at the same rate as cost of living? From what the news is telling me you are having to retire later and live more frugally - so just exactly how have you benefitted from the capitalist machine?

Oh hang on, that's right, you have all those shares tied up with your super, so of course they'll continue to grow us long as the younger generation continue to be good boys and girls and feed the great big ponzi scheme. But what happens when wake up to the deception?

Yes indeed Saorise, today there are far more wealthy Australians
then ever before, most of them in the boomer age.

What has changed is expectations. We now have the young ones, with
much higher expectations, wanting everything now, for little effort.

You might not be aware of it, but the boomers commonly worked their
little butts off to make things easier for their kids. Sadly many
of them have turned out to be spoiled brats who want it all now
and think they are hard done by, if they don't have it all now.

But even the young ones know that the boomers can't take it with
them, so given that every single one is bound to die, the next
generation will inherit far more wealth then any generation before
them

Yabby, I dont think expectations have changed that much... I just want to buy a home to raise my children in - I'm not expecting anyone else to contribute to that - and i'm certainly not relying on my parents to help me get there.

But the problem is that we've been sold on the idea that Gen X/Y are not willing to work hard and pay for it. We are all apparently out buying plasma TVs!

But let's do the math... Average home now costs 8-10 times annual wage. If it cost 3-4 times annual wage (as it did when my parents bought their house) then i could easily subsume at 17-20% interest rate within my wage - but we're not talking about 17-20%, we're talking about 37.5-40% on wages alone, plus the bank rates.

It's divide and conquer - pit us against each other so we dont realise who the real culprits are.

Saoirse, I agree with you, houses have become too expensive, but they
have also doubled in size, in the last 30 years or so. No longer
the 3 by 1 fibros that were so common 30 years ago.

But then 30 years ago, I was paying up to 18% for borrowed money.
Things were not so easy, as you seem to think.

At that time, women only begrudgingly went to work, once they were
married. What alot of my smart friends did, was shack up
together and live cheap. Bank one wage and live off the other.
After 3-4 years, they had a sizeable deposit together, to at
least buy a cheap house. Only then did they think of making
rugrats. The same principle still works today.

I would say you have forgotten something, or you are too young to know. Fifty and sixty years ago, the top tax was 66.6%, and this kept down the high salaries, which kept down the prices of goods and services and allowed seven days jobs if needed. If you could get a look at the wages, prices, rental and costs of mortgages and homes, you would be wanting a higher top tax also. The improvement today would be to have the 65% or 70% top tax on the $450,000 and no tax on the first $30,000, which would just about balance the 30% of GDP that the treasurers have aimed for, or supposed to. You can judge for yourself whether they are fair dinkum or not or are they just too ignorant or corrupt. The women were either working in clothing factories or at home, looking after their children and doing the house work, washing the clothing or doing cooking, the workers were getting enough with their wages to cope with those things. Unfortunately the treasurers ( except for Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd, the rest of the Prime Ministers and Treasurers were/are Lawyers, that may mean something, maybe mathematicians could do the job better) don't seem to understand reality, and can't work out that a 30% of GDP can still be achieved with a 66% or 70% top tax if they increase the amount of no tax ie zero tax on the first $30,000 or whatever was needed.

I understand what you're saying, Yabby, and to a certain extent I agree. However, it's not just the McMansions that are selling for ridiculous prices.

I remember when my parents finally managed to build our first house. We had moved from the unaffordable Sydney to sleepy little Perth in 1991. There, they built quite a modest house for $120,000. It was a three bedder with the bare essentials in trimmings. We only got around to floor coverings when we were about to relocate a year and a bit later, and I we never quite got around to turfing the backyard. My dad and I paved the patio ourselves (well, my dad paved it and I'd like to think I helped, but I was only 9 so was probably more of a hindrance than anything). It wasn't much, but it was ours and we were proud. My parents had worked long and hard for it. We sold it for $120,000. Most recently, it sold for somewhere in the range of $450,000. Even as an alleged high income earner, I cannot afford my old family home.

This isn't a complaint, really. Back then, we got by with far fewer 'necessities' (luxuries, really) than we have today. The internet wasn't a mainstream idea. Few people had mobile phones. We didn't take holidays, either overseas or in Australia. I see it as a trade-off. If I want a house of my own (and I'm quite happy to settle for fibro), I have to reassess what I need in my life and economise the old-fashioned way. I think the real problem is that very few people of my generation and only a few more from the previous generation (bear in mind that the McMansion craze was launched by my parents' generation, drawing much scorn from my folks) are willing to do this. This is why so many work so hard to earn money without taking time out to enjoy it and to be with their families.