Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Can Labour promise real choice on economy in 2015? (Independent)

With the next election still two years away, Ed Miliband will keep much of his powder dry a while yet, says an Independent editorial. But pressure is building.

2. George Osborne's case for austerity has just started to wobble (Guardian)

With the IMF and Osborne's favourite economists revising their figures, the pro-cuts argument now lacks intellectual support, says Polly Toynbee.

3. Small solutions should be Miliband’s big idea (Times

One Nation is just a slogan, writes Philip Collins. If Labour looks after the everyday issues everyone will know what it stands for.

4. Will Gove’s schools revolution be just another false start? (Daily Telegraph)

There are encouraging signs of real progress, but Labour may have other ideas in 2015, writes Fraser Nelson.

5. Obama and gun control: no, we can't (Guardian)

If ever Obama must be tempted to bypass Capitol Hill and rule by executive order, it must be now, says a Guardian editorial.

6. The Japanese PM's 'Abenomics' is a revolution that might not change anything at all (Independent)

After more than 20 years in recession ritual persists in Japan, and for most  people life moves along on fixed rails, writes Peter Popham. 

7. Germany should face the German question (Financial Times)

Berlin must show willing to carry the responsibilities of power, writes Philip Stephens.

8. The Boston bombs show how the internet turned kitchen utensils into weapons of terror (Daily Telegraph)

The blood spilled at Monday's marathon attacks is a reminder of how easy it is to build a deadly weapon, says Con Coughlin. 

9. Michael Gove's disdain for experts is typical of the laissez-faire ideologues (Guardian)

Consultation on the new curriculum is closed but no matter, writes David Preistland. Gove, like the rest of his government, will do what he believes in.

10. Thatcher was right – there is no ‘society’ (Financial Times)

Aid for the poor, or distressed regions, must come from the citizens of the country concerned, argues Samuel Brittan.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”