Have the Boomers Pinched Their Children's Futures? [video]
Boomers’ relative economic and political dominance is argued to have reshaped policy in ways that favor older generations, particularly in the UK and US, through housing scarcity, deregulation, tax changes, and underinvestment in infrastructure. Commenters debate whether younger people are truly “inheriting” government debt or mainly facing the consequences of high asset prices, stagnant real wages, and healthcare systems that will consume much of their parents’ wealth. Proposed remedies range from aggressive housing and planning reform to rethinking tax, inheritance, and healthcare funding, alongside broader critiques of globalization, inflation, and the concentration of gains among capital owners.
Framing of “pinched” and talk’s thesis
- “Pinched” in UK English is interpreted as “stolen,” but several note the talk is more nuanced than the title.
- Core idea: a large Boomer cohort in the UK reshaped policy and institutions around its interests as it aged, largely via scale rather than conscious intent.
- Some argue the main failure is not “stealing” but refusing to build a better future (e.g., killing nuclear, under‑investing in infrastructure).
Debt, government finance, and intergenerational obligations
- One side: public debt is effectively not “left” to children; future generations can inflate or default, and personal debts mostly die with the debtor.
- Counter: much of the “debt” is implicit promises to fund elderly healthcare; politically and morally hard to walk away from.
- Disagreement over who really “relies” on repayment of huge sovereign debts and how likely repayment in real terms is.
- Debate on whether inflation is a transfer from old to young vs mainly from lenders to borrowers; seniors are split between asset‑holders and those living only on entitlements.
Housing, wealth, and inheritance
- Strong consensus that housing has decoupled from wages across the West; younger generations face much higher price‑to‑income ratios.
- Some cite aggregate data (homeownership rates, house size, debt‑service ratios) to argue the picture is less dire; others argue aggregates hide generational and regional gaps and cash buyers.
- UK‑specific issues: planning restrictions, regressive council tax, stamp duty discouraging downsizing, older people “rattling around” in family‑sized homes.
- In the US/UK, many expect elder healthcare and long retirements to erode inheritances; contrast drawn with Russia where apartments more cleanly transfer to heirs.
- Concerns that high public debt → high taxes → forced liquidation of estates, weakening generational wealth transfer.
Wages, productivity, jobs, and skills
- Claim: worker productivity has risen sharply since the 1980s while median wages stagnated; most gains accrued to top earners and capital owners.
- Others respond that society “captured” gains through cheaper goods and more services, though critics say cheaper trinkets ≠ real wealth.
- Dispute over labor market health: official unemployment is low, yet many commenters describe chronic underemployment, saturated white‑collar fields, and intense competition for STEM jobs.
- Anticipation of rising pay in trades due to retirements and shortages; skepticism that firms will actually raise wages rather than leave roles unfilled.
Policy, taxation, ideology, and politics
- Some blame specific party policies (housing, privatization, deregulation); others say elites across parties shape policy with little voter influence.
- Debate around very high mid‑20th‑century tax rates vs modern low effective corporate taxes, and around the interpretation of the Laffer curve.
- Calls to liberalize land use and crush planning barriers to boost housing supply.
- Broader view: neoliberal globalization and integrating the developing world suppressed Western wage growth while lifting billions from poverty.
- Several see a fraying social contract and expect rising populism as younger cohorts face worse prospects and fading faith in pensions, social security, or even system stability.