When did society’s perception shift to viewing it primarily as a collection of age groups? Recent attempts to depict the people of Britain often showcase three distinct divisions: a gap between 58- and 59-year-olds (generation X and boomers), another rift between 42 and 43 (millennials and gen X), and an unbridgeable divide between 26 and 27 (gen Z and millennials).
However, within each age block, individuals are portrayed as largely homogeneous, encompassing a span of about 15 years and representing all levels of society. Generation members are believed to share the same agenda, advantages, disadvantages, and even personalities, akin to a new form of astrology. A friend recently claimed, despite being a millennial based on his birthdate, that he identified as a stoic.
Over the past decade, social problems have increasingly been framed in generational terms. Once these groups are identified, it becomes difficult not to view every social analysis through this captivating filter. The UK’s issue of wealth inequality, for instance, is now often scrutinized through a generational lens rather than classic class-based analysis. Differences in wealth, particularly in property ownership, are viewed as a gap between boomers and younger generations.
While this perspective holds some truth (generational analysis isn’t entirely without merit), it overlooks the significant and widening inequalities within these younger generations. Problems relating to property ownership are frequently labeled as issues plaguing millennials and gen Z as homogeneous cohorts, fostering solidarity among them. However, this is not the case.
Economists Paul Green and Ricky Kanbar from the University of Bath recently published a working paper revealing not only immense wealth disparities among younger generations but also wider gaps compared to previous cohorts. For example, privileged individuals born around 1980 have accumulated housing wealth at a faster rate than their wealthy predecessors. Conversely, the least advantaged face worsening conditions. The prosperity of privileged members of younger generations is increasing, insulating them from their peers’ struggles, while the least fortunate are faring worse.
In essence, a generational problem has morphed into a class problem as affluent boomers have started passing on wealth to their children. This wealth transfer is the real cause of the divide, playing a crucial role in determining the financial status of millennials. Those whose parents owned homes and received higher education have three times the likelihood of owning their own property. Moreover, the wealthier the parents, the costlier the child’s property tends to be.
This issue is significant. The authors argue that homeownership and housing wealth play a significant role in the wealth divide within generations. If this trend persists, the relationship between parental housing wealth and their offspring’s wealth is projected to double within three decades. What can be done about it? The wealthy’s instinct to secure the financial future of their children has prevailed over various social policies, such as expanding education since the 1960s or initiatives like Help to Buy. Family background has become increasingly influential in determining an individual’s wealth.
Unfortunately, directly confronting this problem poses political challenges. The obvious solutions, such as implementing a wealth tax or increasing inheritance tax, are met with resistance from politicians who fear public backlash. They are partly correct as the public tends to view wealth as the result of hard work and saving, disapproving of being “taxed twice” for it. Additionally, there’s a cognitive bias at play here, a form of loss aversion. When addressing wealth inequality, politicians shy away from removing privilege, preferentially focusing on programs to uplift the less privileged.
This foggy thinking is also evident in educational policy. Politicians may endorse the notion of top universities admitting more state school students but are reluctant to entertain the idea of privately educated pupils losing spots as a result.
However, this approach is flawed. Social mobility, at its core, refers to how much an individual’s economic status can improve independent of their family background. This means not only bright and talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds flourishing but also less gifted affluent individuals experiencing setbacks. It is impossible to shift the social landscape when one group monopolizes wealth, housing, top positions, or high-quality education. Politicians willingly discuss social mobility when it benefits the underprivileged, but evade addressing the other side of the equation: helping the overprivileged descend.
Until this problem is tackled, younger generations will continue to diverge in all the significant aspects. While they may share fashion trends and slang, their wealth, housing, and life opportunities will transform them into exaggerated versions of their parents.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
