Boomer Wealth

s1ippy

Inspired by this Washington Post article and another recent one I can't find now, that said only one fifth of those in America with fortunes to pass on actually intend to do so.

I know it's a very America-centric title, but people born circa 1950 in this country also hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power.

Many in Ireland will pass wealth on to their children; possibly more than across the pond. I know a fair few people set to inherit dynasties and debts their parents accrued and incurred.

Ireland has always been renowned as being governed by nepotism and "the land of jobs for the boys" but I never felt any of that. My parents didn't have the right connections. I also envisage that whatever my parents leave in their will, there'll be one particular person who will definitely engage at least me, but possibly all the other beneficiaries in legal action and create a huge mire of sh!t, thus making what's set to be the worst tragedy of my life even more traumatic. Hopefully it's decades away.

Are you set to benefit from your parents wealth? Are you supporting them financially, like so many? Are you self-made or do you owe your success to your background?

James Brown

s1ippy wrote: »

Inspired by this Washington Post article and another recent one I can't find now, that said only one fifth of those in America with fortunes to pass on actually intend to do so.

I know it's a very America-centric title, but people born circa 1950 in this country also hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power.

Many in Ireland will pass wealth on to their children; possibly more than across the pond. I know a fair few people set to inherit dynasties and debts their parents accrued and incurred.

Ireland has always been renowned as being governed by nepotism and "the land of jobs for the boys" but I never felt any of that. My parents didn't have the right connections. I also envisage that whatever my parents leave in their will, there'll be one particular person who will definitely engage at least me, but possibly all the other beneficiaries in legal action and create a huge mire of sh!t, thus making what's set to be the worst tragedy of my life even more traumatic. Hopefully it's decades away.

Are you set to benefit from your parents wealth? Are you supporting them financially, like so many? Are you self-made or do you owe your success to your background?

Isn't the trend towards millennials and older needing support from their parents?

This is from last year.

Rising housing costs see 77% of young Irish adults living with their parents
Link

This is 9 years old.

Nearly 60% Of Parents Provide Financial Support To Adult Children
Link

s1ippy

Jesus!

I can't even imagine asking my parents for money, they'd tell me where to go. They're not stuck for it, but that's because they don't go giving it away.

I'd estimate that I know more people looking after (elderly) parents than I do people living off their parents. My siblings and I all moved far, far away by the time we were 18 in my family, so that probably speaks volumes. A few came back to help, but the parents have mellowed out a lot in their senior years.

I'm not sure that experience is even unique for people age 30+ though.

Yurt2

This is an extremely sticky and controversial one. Using the the maxim of demoraphics are destiny, the generation born around 1950-60 were blessed from a population pyramid and historical context. Blessed from the reality that in the post-war wasteland of Europe, everything needed to be rebuilt and the demoraphics perfectly suited runway economic growth. Good luck to you trying to get them to concede that much of that generation's gains was dumb luck. The nadir came in the 80s, when Thatcher and Regan (and fellow travelers elsewhere) flipped.the script on the post-war settlement and decided to lock-in the gains made from certain cohorts and demoraphics at the expense of others via the financialisation of the economy for petty electoral gain.

Kids born around the millennium and after have a shocking hand dealt to them. We've built up a reserve of structural problems too numerous to list here, and they'll be the ones footing the bill socially. I'm not optimistic for their fate to be honest.

Nepotism is alive and well in Ireland. Never proved any use to me however.


The Yank boomers were fortunate that they had FDR and his New Deal. It really set them up on the pig's back.

A Green New Deal is much needed in America as their manufacturing has been decimated and it isn't getting any prettier. We could do with our own Emerald New Deal.

Similar with Britain, their healthcare was looked after with the founding of the NHS and there was plenty of rebuilding to do post-war.


It's no surprise that the last great booms were the result of leaders with socialistic ideals in both US and UK.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Kids born around the millennium and after have a shocking hand dealt to them. We've built up a reserve of structural problems too numerous to list here, and they'll be the ones footing the bill socially. I'm not optimistic for their fate to be honest.

Yup, definitely not looking overly hospitable for the upcoming generations.

Gregor Samsa

s1ippy wrote: »

I know it's a very America-centric title, but people born circa 1950 in this country also hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power.

But surely it’s no surprise that people at the end of their careers and having raised their children are financially better off than those starting out or in the middle of raising a family. If you were born in the 50s you’ll have paid off your mortgage, (hopefully) no longer be supporting children, will have had years to accrue savings, maybe a pension lump sum, but that was the same for the people born in the 40s, 30s 20s before them. And will be the same for the generations after when their time comes.

My dad was born in the late 1930s. While I don’t currently have as much to my name as he had when he was in retirement, I’m certainly doing much better than he was when he was my age (mid 40s).

hotmail.com

Boomer label doesn't apply to Ireland. We didn't have our baby boom til the 1960s and 70s.

A lot of people born circa 1950 haven't got much money at all or are living in England.

odyssey06

Passionate discussions of the "haves" and the "have nots" seem completely unaffected by growing evidence that most of these are the same people at different stages of their lives...
- Thomas Sowell

Yurt2

odyssey06 wrote: »

Passionate discussions of the "haves" and the "have nots" seem completely unaffected by growing evidence that most of these are the same people at different stages of their lives...
- Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is skilled in American partisan political rhetoric and very little else. Certainly not hard-nosed economics that stands up to scrutiny. A sad case of an African American in the Academy made into a useful idiot. It paid his mortgage a few times over I guess.

Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

But surely it’s no surprise that people at the end of their careers and having raised their children are financially better off than those starting out or in the middle of raising a family. If you were born in the 50s you’ll have paid off your mortgage, (hopefully) no longer be supporting children, will have had years to accrue savings, maybe a pension lump sum, but that was the same for the people born in the 40s, 30s 20s before them. And will be the same for the generations after when their time comes.

My dad was born in the late 1930s. While I don’t currently have as much to my name as he had when he was in retirement, I’m certainly doing much better than he was when he was my age (mid 40s).

The point is that boomers were more comfortable and better off than their equivalent today. They had solid employment and could afford to buy a house and support the family, often on one income.

Smee_Again

I’d love it if my parents left us kids nothing, it’d mean they enjoyed their well earned retirement.

Gregor Samsa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is that boomers were more comfortable and better off than their equivalent today. They had solid employment and could afford to buy a house and support the family, often on one income.

Well, I think there’s more to it then that. Quality of life was very different then. My dad didn’t buy a car until I was 7. No normal families had 2 cars. People didn’t take foreign holidays, people didn’t spend money on phones, tablets, computers and so many other gadgets. My parents got a wedding present of a vacuum cleaner, and that was the one they used for 30 years. I’ve spent well over a grand on Dysons in the last 15 years alone. Basically, they could afford a house and food, but they spend hardly anything on anything else. Remember, they were paying double digit interest rates on their mortgages and loans. Credit has never been so cheap as it is now, but we have very different expectations of how life is to be lived.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is that boomers were more comfortable and better off than their equivalent today. They had solid employment and could afford to buy a house and support the family, often on one income.

The 1980s were pretty bleak in Ireland with high unemployment and emigration.

The American analysis doesn't apply in any way at all to us.

joseywhales

I think this is more about housing costs than any other factor, I would argue we have better health which is priceless.

Das Reich

Smee_Again wrote: »

I’d love it if my parents left us kids nothing, it’d mean they enjoyed their well earned retirement.

Strange culture on those anglophone countries. If they brought children to the world is their responsability to leave them in a better position than they had.

AllForIt

So, I'll just do noting to create wealth for myself and hope those that do will 're-distribute' it me.

Handy.

joseywhales

Das Reich wrote: »

Strange culture on those anglophone countries. If they brought children to the world is their responsability to leave them in a better position than they had.

It is strange that we leave any inheritance, it creates an un-equal system, that is less meritocratic, leading to a very inefficient workforce, where the most talented is not the most rewarded. If we had any sense we would focus on breaking the inheritance cycle but keeping just enough to incentivise retirees to maintain their businesses as they come near the end. I honestly feel we are working at <50% here.

Yurt2

AllForIt wrote: »

So, I'll just do noting to create wealth for myself and hope those that do will 're-distribute' it me.

Handy.

Yes. That's the point of the thread. Gold star

nj27

I'm rich, that's the way it happened for me. I didn't have any help from my parents either, I paid for my college myself and I have been investing online since my early teens. I learned the square root of jack **** in college on top of being half retarded myself.

I have 8 employees now and I am profoundly mentally ill, but that is not down to my past or my parents in any way shape or form. I am essentially a bad egg in the colloquial sense, but somehow I was blessed with incredible mathematical ability, if not linguistic or inter-personal skills, yet I have found my way and you can too.

joseywhales

nj27 wrote: »

I'm rich, that's the way it happened for me. I didn't have any help from my parents either, I paid for my college myself and I have been investing online since my early teens. I learned the square root of jack **** in college on top of being half retarded myself.

I have 8 employees now and I am profoundly mentally ill, but that is not down to my past or my parents in any way shape or form. I am essentially a bad egg in the colloquial sense, but somehow I was blessed with incredible mathematical ability, if not linguistic or inter-personal skills, yet I have found my way and you can too.

I'll take the money, not the mental illness hopefully if that's optional.

Tork

If one or both parents get to the stage where they need full-time care, watch that wealth start to shrink.

joseywhales

Tork wrote: »

If one or both parents get to the stage where they need full-time care, watch that wealth start to shrink.

Ah you have to give it to children you trust before that happens, let the state be the safety net with some reciprocal gifting from said children.

nthclare

My dad's retired from the top of his scale department of justice mum worked in health care and their house is paid for.
Mum and himself have a good pension pot and savings.
They don't owe a cent and never bought into the property bubble like some of their friends did.

He's a shrewd Kerry man and lives within his means.
If they pass away there's enough cash for myself and my brother and sister to retire and live quite comfortably.

I've no interest in gambling with pension funds, at 45 my house is paid for from inheritance I got in 2003.

I enjoy life as best I can.

You'll get people saving thousands and work their arses off to retire so they could enjoy coastal drives, have weekends away and maybe fish in river's and off the rocks, go hiking, visit historical sites etc and buy a camper van and tour the country side.

You can do that at a young age too, it's all an illusion of grandeur if you can break the barrier of being addicted to the rat race for the sake of what you can enjoy at a young age...

At 27 I gave up drug's and alcohol in 2003 and it's the best thing I ever did.

It doesn't make me a better man than people still drugging and boozing, but I feel much better in myself that I no longer make stupid decisions and get into self inflicted anxiety, guilt and watching my back and losing memory.

It's a long hangover kicking the drug's and alcohol but I'm living today and I really enjoy the peace of mind and self awareness.

I'm still a rogue, can be arrogant opinionated but I'm able to live with my contradictions....

alias no.9

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is that boomers were more comfortable and better off than their equivalent today. They had solid employment and could afford to buy a house and support the family, often on one income.

Longevity of employment was definitely there, if you could get a job and your company didn't close down, but unemployment was endemic and redundancy often meant never working again.

The private rental trap was much smaller but buying wasn't necessarily that easy and interest rates were crippling at times, the biggest difference was that social housing was provided by the state via building instead of HAP. On the house buying front, I'm going to take estates in Rathfarnham, Dublin 16 as an bellweather for the type of area that I've heard cited by people who've said their parents could afford to buy there on one income, but now they're unaffordable. The reality is that their parents bought into new estates at the extreme fringes of the city that were almost inaccessible. The roads, schools, shops, public transport, local services came after the houses. The equivalent today would be buying in Sagart, Adamstown or Charlestown except most of the local infrastructure is better developed. Their parents have houses in nice estates because they were part of the community that matured what were new estates into nice estates in the first place.

As for supporting a family, all meals were home cooked, all lunches were packed lunches, meals out were for communions or confirmations. The one TV in the house was rented and the one and latterly two channels were paid for via the TV license, the TV licence was cheaper if you had a black and white TV. Phones (landlines) were a luxury that many didn't have, even if you had the money it could take a year or more to get a phone installed (this would have been the case into the 1990's).
Many families had no car. A second car in the family was the preserve of the filthy rich or the households where two parents worked, the wife was typically a teacher or nurse. Even farmers had one saloon car that towed the cowbox to the mart and all that stuff, no 4x4's on most farms until close to the millennium. Cars were typically well worn out before they were replaced, modern cars wear the years and miles much better despite what some would tell you, a combination of rust and mechanical wear and tear would usually see cars beyond repair somewhere between 8 and 12 years.

There are certainly examples of children of so called boomers that are will not do as well in life as there parents but there are no shortage of others who have far more than their parents ever had.

nj27

joseywhales wrote: »

I'll take the money, not the mental illness hopefully if that's optional.

Me too, that wasn't an option for me unfortunately.

Gregor Samsa

Tork wrote: »

If one or both parents get to the stage where they need full-time care, watch that wealth start to shrink.

I remember my dad going through his finances with me about 3 years ago. He was 78 at the time. Fully owned a house in Dublin, had 6 figure savings and a decent pension coming in each month - more than he needed, so even at that age his savings were growing. He said that it was the first time in his life that he felt financially secure. He spent his whole working life worrying about money, and finally in his old age he could relax - and he knew that he had the money to cover any care that he would need in the future.

Little did the two of us know that night that less than a year later, he’d be paying €1200 a week in nursing home fees, as he slowly lost his independence, health and mind. He died in May - didn’t stand a chance when Covid 19 ravaged the home.

Myself and my brother stand to inherit what he left now, which is a strange booby prize for the loss of a great dad. Both of us would have gladly seen his savings decimated, and us paying for his care, to still have him with us.

But I still remember how happy and proud and fearless he was that night, when he could say that no matter what happened to him as old age unfolded, he could cover it.

nthclare

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I remember my dad going through his finances with me about 3 years ago. He was 78 at the time. Fully owned a house in Dublin, had 6 figure savings and a decent pension coming in each month - more than he needed, so even at that age his savings were growing. He said that it was the first time in his life that he felt financially secure. He spent his whole working life worrying about money, and finally in his old age he could relax - and he knew that he had the money to cover any care that he would need in the future.

Little did the two of us know that night that less than a year later, he’d be paying €1200 a week in nursing home fees, as he slowly lost his independence, health and mind. He died in May - didn’t stand a chance when Covid 19 ravaged the home.

Myself and my brother stand to inherit what he left now, which is a strange booby prize for the loss of a great dad. Both of us would have gladly seen his savings decimated, and us paying for his care, to still have him with us.

But I still remember how happy and proud and fearless he was that night, when he could say that no matter what happened to him as old age unfolded, he could cover it.

Your dad sounds like my dad, hard working contentious and a great father figure.

Sorry you lost your dad, and as they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. It's great to emulate our parents and have a happy upbringing.
I wish yourself and your brother well for the future.

Edgware

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, definitely not looking overly hospitable for the upcoming generations.

Ah **** em. Any of them with a brain are in college until they are 21/22. Then they decide to **** off around the world for a few years. When they do come back they will flute away until they decide to try and buy a property with no fûcking deposit or permanent job.
I was in London 2 days after my Leaving cert and ended up in Norwich for 3 years. I came across here after 7 years working across from Norfolk to Dorset on deliveries. I got a similar job here and just got on with life

Geuze

joseywhales wrote: »

It is strange that we leave any inheritance, it creates an un-equal system, that is less meritocratic, leading to a very inefficient workforce, where the most talented is not the most rewarded. If we had any sense we would focus on breaking the inheritance cycle but keeping just enough to incentivise retirees to maintain their businesses as they come near the end. I honestly feel we are working at <50% here.

Many retired people don't / can't spend all their income, and so they inevitable accumulate savings.

The head of non-con pensions in the DSP told me that one issue they issue is non-con pensioners savings so much, that they subsequently fail the means test.

El Tarangu

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that boomers were more comfortable and better off than their equivalent today. They had solid employment and could afford to buy a house and support the family, often on one income.

This statement doesn't stand up to any scrutiny; by the late 1980s, unemployment was at 17%, interest rates were at 15%, marginal income tax rates were at 60%.

30% of university graduates emigrated, many of whom never came back.

Obviously the current global pandemic has put a spanner in the works - but if you think that the boomers* were living the high-hog in decades gone by, you are much mistaken.


*as another poster has pointed out 'boomers' is a misnomer in an Irish context - our population was shrinking then, so the demographic benefits of a growing population didn't apply