If there was another EU referendum...

Taken directly from the IFS report: The Economic Circumstances of Cohorts Born between the 1940s and the 1970s
www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r89.pdf

This report compares and contrasts the economic circumstances of individuals born between the 1940s and the 1970s inclusive. In doing so, it aims to provide a sense of the likely economic position of cohorts currently in the middle of working-age life (roughly the 1960s and 1970s cohorts) as they age, both in absolute terms and relative to their predecessors who are already at or around pensioner ages (roughly the 1940s and 1950s cohorts).
Huge changes in the economy and society over a number of decades mean that individuals born at different times can face radically different economic environments. Due to sustained economic growth in the post-war period, successive birth cohorts have been better off than the last – though, as this report shows, there are several reasons to doubt whether this recent norm continues to apply.

We again see that the norm in recent decades has been for those born later to have significantly higher incomes than their predecessors had at the same age. As discussed above, this reflects the sustained economic growth seen during most of the post-war period. For example, age-30 median income was 20% higher for the 1970s cohort than for the 1960s cohort, 52% higher than for the 1950s cohort and 77% higher than for the 1940s cohort. However, the prolonged period of slow income growth from the early 2000s and the sharp recession of the late 2000s have combined to leave those born in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with no higher real incomes – if anything, somewhat lower real incomes – than those born 10 years earlier had at the same age. Box 2.1 discusses the inflation measure used to make these long-run real-terms comparisons and verifies, as best we can,

The shapes of the age profiles for different cohorts are indeed sensitive to equivalisation. For example, on an unequivalised basis, median income between ages 30 and 40 for the 1970s cohort was broadly flat, whereas on an equivalised basis it fell markedly, most likely as the result of the arrival of children. In other words, the small increase in (unequivalised) incomes did not keep pace with the higher living costs associated with an increase in household size, and so the standard of living for this cohort as measured by equivalised household income fell. But with or without equivalisation, the 1960s and 1970s cohorts have experienced much less income growth over the past decade (during their 40s and 30s respectively) than their predecessors experienced at the same age. Hence, the closing of the ‘age-adjusted’ income gap between cohorts is not driven by any cohort differences in household formation; it is driven by trends in unequivalised incomes.
Note that, as revealed by a comparison with Figure 2.2, the deterioration in the 1940s cohort’s income relative to the prior cohort at the same age has been less severe than for younger cohorts over the past decade. Median income for the 1940s cohort in their late 60s remains at, or slightly above, median income at the same age for the 1930s cohort. Cribb et al. (2013) made essentially the same point: real incomes were higher for those aged in their 60s and 70s in 2011–12 than for individuals of that age a decade earlier, but the same is not true for younger age groups of adults. Those authors also showed that the same is true
8 See figure 5.7 in Cribb et al. (2013).
9 Browne, Hood and Johnson, 2013; Joyce and Phillips, 2013. 10 See Figure 3.1 in the next chapter.
11 See Figure 3.2 in the next chapter.
www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r89.pdf

Trends in rates of homeownership across cohorts are one of the most striking of all the economic indicators considered in this report. The 1960s and (particularly) the 1970s cohorts are taking longer than their predecessors to get on the housing ladder, and the gap between cohorts has been growing over the last decade as homeownership rates for those born in the 1960s and 1970s have changed little.
We do not find evidence that renters in younger cohorts have been compensating for this by saving more. Those who do own homes appear to own properties of similar relative value to previous cohorts, and the proportion who own outright is no lower than for previous cohorts at the same age. Together, these factors provide tentative evidence that inequality in property wealth may be higher among the 1960s and 1970s cohorts than it was at the same age among those born in the 1940s and 1950
www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r89.pdf

Not really sure how much more one can say Maizie, or how many different way’s this report can confirm that pre 1970 each generation was better off than the previous one. This no longer applies at the same age stage for the 1960’s and 1970’s generations judged in various areas of economic measurement.

You are a selective poster Maizie. I too got my information from the report. You seem to have skipped all the considerable evidence that my interpretation is correct.

So Maizie and Varian, this means that things are worse now than they were in the period between WW11 and the time we were members of the EU with ever closer union when we joined the "common market" which of course was a lot more than that, but we were not really listening. Who could have imagined that we would end up so entangled with a pseudo Nation, that would make us into citizens of no nation by issuing us all a passport with the words EU on it.

The EU is a trading organisation with members who pay a hugh amount of membership fee for access to a single market, surrendering their sovereignty, accepting rules and regulations that rob them of their democracy, their rule of law and prevent them trading on an even playing feel with other markets. Then when a member wants to leave, it's a bit like having a gym membership, it just isn't for you, the full fee for a whole year is still payable, and you just can't get out, without penalty. In the case of the EU the only way out is out, they make it impossible to do anything other. Any other way of trading with the EEA Country's through the EU via EFTA, or being a satellite country as they call it, means you are still in to a lesser or greater degree.

The EU has brought all the EEA Country's down, it has created, polarised political extremes, it has massive unemployment, a looming Euro crisis. Unrest in most of the large cities in the EEA Country's, because of poverty, social exclusion, creating fertile ground for disenfranchised young people to rebel in a number of way's all of which threaten security, social stability and political stability as the gap between the rich and the poor get's ever wider in over populated cities throughout the EEA.

Austerity, poverty, and political unrest, across the EU are just off every tourist route, the area's we don't see, don't want to see, and are told to avoid for our own safety.

Thank you Jalimal. Such a range of options for the name Pollaidh. I suppose you being an old hand on GN you will know more than I. So I imagine if Pollaidh has been posting since 2014 she or he cannot be a young person. Not that it matters of course.

I wonder if he or she will give us some feedback on how our discussion have helped or not, he or she step outside the remain bubble.

Thanks for the insight Jalimal, very kind.

Spot on Allygran. Well said.

I have travelled to rural France, Spain and southern Germany in the course of this year and in smaller towns in these countries there is discernable poverty, high unemployment and very strong anti-EU feeling. It's not reported in the UK. Remainers would have us believe that everything in member states is rosy when it patently ISN'T.

I came back feeling more sure than ever that not only was my vote to leave the right one, but convinced that ridding ourselves of the inflexible, dictatorial EU puppet masters is the only way forward. There may be unknowns in the future we create for ourselves, but there are frightening certainties we'd be tethered to if we continued to pump billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers money into an institution that bears very little resemblance to the one we joined all those years ago.

Could not agree more Day 6. Reality seems to have been lost in this romance and glorification of an EU Nation, that does not exist.

The reality is far from the image that both the EU and it's supporters try to portray. You describe it so well.

Not really sure how much more one can say Maizie, or how many different way’s this report can confirm that pre 1970 each generation was better off than the previous one.

What you appear to be missing, Ally is that in 1970 neither of the cohorts were economically active. They would not be so until about 1980 at the earliest. Any negative economic influences in the 70s would have affected previous cohorts, not them.

I know you are desperate to associate this all this with joining the EEC/EU but it won't wash. The more obvious correlation is that by the time the 1960s cohort became economically active (late 70s early 80s) there was a tory government in place which enabled the factors identified in the report as adversely affecting the long term economic prospects of these 2 cohorts. That is: changes to pensions, rising house prices and failure to save. Nothing at all to do with the EU. Domestic policy...

It would be nice to know if this thread has helped Pollaidh at all, I agree Allygran

A report by the Resolution Foundation highlighting the UK’s growing intergenerational divide showed that millennials, who are aged between 15 and 35, fared significantly worse than their parents in Generation X during their first years of employment.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/18/millennials-earn-8000-pounds-less-in-their-20s-than-predecessors

As you say, Maizie, the short-term policies of Margaret Thatcher, and to a lesser extent subsequent governments, stored up trouble for future generations, eg the sale of council houses without allowing replacement, the deliberate destruction of traditional industries, wholesale privatisation, tuition fees and PPI.

Then came the impact of the global; financial crash of 2008 followed by austerity.

Finally, and most devastating of all - the threat of leaving the EU without a deal.

This triple whammy is what makes it likely that future generations such as our children and grandchildren will be worse off than us.

None of this has anything to do with our decision to join the EU in 1973.

yet another report by the Resolution Foundation to stir up intergenerational strife.

The group of millennials I was with yesterday all seem to earn more than we ever did at their age, relatively speaking - are they the exceptions to the rule I wonder?
And who can predict what they will actually earn over their lifetime?

Maizie you appear to have missed the point of the report. Those cohorts born in the 1960 and 1970's are doing less well throughout there lives than their predecessors were at the same age/stage in their lives prior to 1970, between WW11 and 1970. So these dates coincide with our closer union with the EU from 1973. Therefore that cohort at their economic active stages in life (obviously after they were born in the 1960's and 1970's) has then been compared to their predecessors at the same age's 20, 30, 40, 50 etc at a given time between WW11 and 1970. The result is in all area's the 1960's and 1970's cohorts are not better off than their predecessors at the same age in life.

The only area that the report considers they may be better off is when their predecessors die and they inherit money. This does not apply across the board, and therefore is an uneven distribution of wealth that is not guaranteed.

Another issue NOT mentioned in the report but worthy of consideration is that many older home owners are no longer leaving money to the children and grandchildren, they are remortgaging to assist them when they need the money, and some are actually leaving their children or grandchildren with a mortgage to pay off from the sale of the property after their demise. Many are using equity release to access their money but stay in their home, however when they die, the house actually either belongs to the lender outright or there might be a small residue between the sale price and the equity release amount, but the bulk of the money in most families is contained in property and many are using that asset to assist their families. Others I know are just spending the inheritance and having a ball! So that is not a guaranteed "windfall" for the 1960's 1970's cohorts either.

Since you are so positive (as always) that the decrease in improved economic conditions for those cohorts 1960's/1970's throughout their lives has nothing at all to do with being a member of the EU perhaps you could say why there is no influence or effect from being in the EU?

Surely if the EU is so good for every Country who is a member and their, well we can't say citizens, because we are not citizens of our own Country's are we are citizens of the non Nation the EU, however, their population's, then why has this happened?

It is clear if you read the IFS report that these cohorts are either no better off or less better off than their predecessors between WW11 and 1970's at the same age(s). Now the report only compared and contrasted those two cohorts with with the generations between WW11 and 1970. It would be interesting to compare and contrast with those born after the 1970's. Would we also see less than favourable economic comparison's at the same age in life with the WW11 to 1970's predecessors. Certainly the home ownership would be down, more rent as you have cherrypicked from the report, but do not save. It would be interesting to see further study's on this.

The main point to summarise Maize is, that whilst we have been in the EU life for the population of the UK has been worse than it was before our 'ever closer union' in terms of economic generational improvement for the two cohorts researched, compared and contrasted. The other cohorts since 1970's have not been researched in this report so we have no data on those cohorts.

If you look at the other Country's in the EEA you will also see deterioration at all levels, even in Germany. Now we do not have research evidence to support that, because we have not looked for it, so I bring it up merely from what can be read, what can be seen, and economic and social deterioration the figures can be accessed and the political situation is seen in the polarisation of extreme political affiliations and the shift from the political centre in most EU Country's. I am sure with a bit of time I could research it, but I feel that the point has been made certainly as far as the UK generational economic deterioration is concerned by the IFS report in the generations it compared and contrasted.

If as you claim Maizie and Varian the EU has had no influence on the UK at all since we became 'ever closer's 1973, why are we a member? It seems that there has been no positive improvement as evidenced by the IFS report and as Varian has shown in her post, one has to ask the question why? If the EU is the be all and end all of wonderment, improvement and economic growth, social improvement and Europe wide security and stability, why are none of those things in evidence across the EEA after all these years? It is a simple question, can either of you answer it?

Jalimal. The IFS report is about generational economic degrading, specifically between the WW11 and 1970's, and those born in the 1960's/70's cohorts at the same age. It is not about income as such it is wider than that and is about equivalence. The report is really interesting and worth reading. No doubt as I said earlier if a research compare and contrast was done between other cohorts the findings might be very interesting.

yet another report by the Resolution Foundation to stir up intergenerational strife.

It's a quite old report, Jalima which no doubt did a bit of stirring in 2013 when it was published. I wouldn't worry about it.

What concerns me is Ally's attempt to link its conclusions to the time we joined the EEC/EU.

There is very little in the report which indicates any correlation to that event. What is more telling is that the problems which beset the 60s and 70s cohort can be correlated to the policies of the tory government which came to power in 1979 and lasted until 1997. The destruction of our heavy industries, privatisation and the sale of our public utilities to foreign owners, the 'taming' of the unions which made it harder for them to negotiate better terms and conditions for their members, the lack of support for the regions affected by de-industrialisation and the development of financial services industry were all domestically driven ideological policies. Not the fault of the EU.

If anything, the creation of the Single Market and free movement of goods and people (driven by the tories, don't forget) offered a lifeline to exporters and to UK citizens (remember the Boys from the Black Stuff?) and encouraged companies such as Nissan to invest in the UK because it offered them a way into the EU markets.

Not only that, but being part of a very large market enabled us to take advantage of the advantageous trade deals with non EU countries negotiated by the EU.

I think a lot of the problems for our government over these negotiations, of any political colour, is the fact that they/we over the years have become so used to 'clinging onto nurse' i.e. the EU, that we have virtually forgotten how to govern ourselves, and making our own decisions without constantly having to refer back to the EU which has put us into an alien position that we're simply not familiar with and haven't been for years. Indecision, constant squabbling, inability to sound confident, all signs of being out of our depth after years and years of being cottonwooled. Hopefully confidence in ourselves will return when we re enter the real world!

Maisie the report compares population before and after the ever closer union in 1973 and onward for that particular cohort. Whilst it does not mention the EU much. It is impossible to compare generational economic degrading in and out of the Common Market as it was called, without taking into consideration the influence of the EU on the UK both socially, economically and legally.

It matters not that Nissan came to the Uk, it matters not that we have free movement and a single market as far as this is concerned, what this report shows is that the generations born 1960 and 1970 have not been better off than generations prior to 1970's.

This report evidences that those two cohorts throughout their lives to the date of the report have not been better off being in the EU than their predecessors where not as heavily involved in the EU at the same stages in their lives. It really is as simple as that.

It also doesn't matter which Government nor does it matter that we had access to a very large market, we had that before we joined the EU, and it seemed expedient for UK needs at that time. It is now expedient for the UK to move into world wide free markets, as well as trade with the individual Country's in Europe, but not controlled by EU regs restrictions, protectivist tariffs etc

On this topic of generational economic degradation what matter's is that in this report those two cohorts throughout their lives are not better off than those prior to 1970, when from WW11 to 1970 there previously had been generational economic betterment at the same age(s) throughout life.

May I also suggest that you research the history of the EU involvement in the UK having to reduce the coal mining and steel production. The EU have a lot to do with it. I haven't time to research it today, but do take a look, you will be very surprised if you do not already know. Also it became known as 'taming' the Unions, but that was not the main issue it was a consequence of the times. The issue was an economic one brought about by the EU..check it out. These myths need debunking.

Nigglynellie there is a lot in what you have said. It is a factor that can't be ignored.

Too much emphasis is being placed on trying to please all the people all the time. Just get on with fulfilling the promises made to those who put them in power, and gave them the mandate to act on the referendum at the General Election.

This is from a balance report in my view warts and all, on "Government Policy on Manufacturing since 1945".
This report clearly and rightly in my view judges that joining the EU was one of the factors that affected the economy and economic policy, as it must. Good report, wart's and all as I said, a bit dry but honest I thought.

"It is not, of course, straightforward to assess the effects of policy, since policy is never made in a vacuum. Policies such as nationalisation or industrial subsidies are not performed as randomised controlled trials, and events such as joining the European Economic Community affect all of the economy simultaneously, and are contemporaneous with other events, in this case including the oil shocks and associated economic crises. In theory one could construct alternative counterfactual models, but the reality is that too many things vary at the same time for this to be an appropriate research strategy."
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277158/ep2-government-policy-since-1945.pdf

Varian take a look at this, facts on which Governments closed the pits. They all did and Harold Wilson closed the most.

Colliery Closures Since 1947

It is interesting to note that in the 3 counties during the 4 Labour party periods of Government 1945-1951, 1964-1970, 1974-1979, and 1997-2010, 30 pits were closed in North Derbyshire, 18 in Nottinghamshire and 12 in South Derbyshire / Leicestershire, making a total of 60 closed. (Welbeck (Nottinghamshire) was planned before the change in Government and closed early May 2010).

During the 4 Conservative party periods of Government 1951-1964, 1970-1974, 1979-1997 and 2010-2015, 12 pits were closed in North Derbyshire, 27 in Nottinghamshire and 19 in South Derbyshire / Leicestershire, making a total of 59 closed. During the period 1951-1997, 6 new mines were opened.

Maltby (Hargreaves) in South Yorkshire was closed in Jan 2013 due to eruptions of hydro carbons.
Daw Mill (UK Coal) in Warwickshire was closed Feb 2013 due to underground fire out of control.
Hatfield (Hargreaves) in South Yorkshire was closed in June 2015 due to lack of orders
Thoresby (UK Coal) last pit in Nottinghamshire was closed in July 2015.
Kellingley (UK Coal) last deep mine pit in UK was closed December 2015, again due to lack of orders.

The price of coal being imported was at around £30 a tonne. UK Coal could not mine it for that price and had asked for Government funding so as to compete. However the £338m was not forthcoming, only a few £m to assist closing down the mines.

Moorside Drift mine (Moorside Mining) at Eckington, Derbyshire, work suspended 2013 due to monetary problems but restarted again under new owner / management in 2014.
Aberpergwm and Unity (South Wales) small Anthracite drift mines continue, and
Several very small drift mines in the Forest of Dean continue to work also at 2016.

However, overall from a total of 1,250 pits in 1947 to the present day, 522 mines were closed throughout the UK by Labour and 728 by the Conservatives, including several hundred small licensed mines.

By Comparison the large collieries closed since 1947 under the various Prime Ministers.....
No matter how painful it is, the results show that

Clement Attlee closed 101 pits
Churchill 78
Eden 35
Home 24
Heath 26
Major 55
Harold Wilson closed 253 pits as against Margaret Thatcher’s 115, more than twice as many.

The one who closed the most pits in one 6 year term from 1957 to 1963 was Harold Macmillan with 246, and ‘nobody noticed’, not even me until I researched the figures.

Kellingley in North Yorkshire was the last deep mine in Britain and closed in December 2015 bringing to an end at least 1,000 years of underground coal mining. No doubt surface opencast working will continue for the next few years as sites become available and coal imports will continue also but it is possible that coal burning at power stations will cease from 2025.

Allygran1

To be frank, I don't have the time or the inclination to plough through all these cut and pastes in detail, but one small section of one seems to me to put quite the opposite slant on things from that which you seem to attribute to the whole :

' Due to sustained economic growth in the post-war period, successive birth cohorts have been better off than the last – though, as this report shows, there are several reasons to doubt whether this recent norm continues to apply. '

' We again see that the norm in recent decades has been for those born later to have significantly higher incomes than their predecessors had at the same age. As discussed above, this reflects the sustained economic growth seen during most of the post-war period. For example, age-30 median income was 20% higher for the 1970s cohort than for the 1960s cohort, 52% higher than for the 1950s cohort and 77% higher than for the 1940s cohort. However, the prolonged period of slow income growth from the early 2000s and the sharp recession of the late 2000s have combined to leave those born in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with no higher real incomes – if anything, somewhat lower real incomes – than those born 10 years earlier had at the same age. '

As I understand it, it says that income growth slowed in the early 2000s. Until then each generation tended to be better off than the last. Where does it say that this is related in any way to the EU?

Maisie You are not reading the whole report in context. Taking things out of context does not reflect the overall conclusion of the report.
Like you I cannot continue to bang my head against a brick wall, if you will forgive me for referring to you in that way.

You have the information, you have the report, you have the summary, you have everything you need to be able to make an analysis. I have emboldened the area of relevance to assist your understanding I really can do no more to assist you:

This report compares and contrasts the economic circumstances of individuals born between the 1940s and the 1970s inclusive. In doing so, it aims to provide a sense of the likely economic position of cohorts currently in the middle of working-age life (roughly the 1960s and 1970s cohorts) as they age, both in absolute terms and relative to their predecessors who are already at or around pensioner ages (roughly the 1940s and 1950s cohorts).
Huge changes in the economy and society over a number of decades mean that individuals born at different times can face radically different economic environments. Due to sustained economic growth in the post-war period, successive birth cohorts have been better off than the last – -though, as this report shows, *there are several reasons to doubt whether this recent norm continues to apply.

We again see that the norm in recent decades has been for those born later to have significantly higher incomes than their predecessors had at the same age. As discussed above, this reflects the sustained economic growth seen during most of the post-war period. For example, age-30 median income was 20% higher for the 1970s cohort than for the 1960s cohort, 52% higher than for the 1950s cohort and 77% higher than for the 1940s cohort. However, the prolonged period of slow income growth from the early 2000s and the sharp recession of the late 2000s have combined to leave those born in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with no higher real incomes – if anything, somewhat lower real incomes – than those born 10 years earlier had at the same age. Box 2.1 discusses the inflation measure used to make these long-run real-terms comparisons and verifies, as best we can,

The shapes of the age profiles for different cohorts are indeed sensitive to equivalisation. For example, on an unequivalised basis, median income between ages 30 and 40 for the 1970s cohort was broadly flat, whereas on an equivalised basis it fell markedly, most likely as the result of the arrival of children. In other words, the small increase in (unequivalised) incomes did not keep pace with the higher living costs associated with an increase in household size, and so the standard of living for this cohort as measured by equivalised household income fell. But with or without equivalisation, the 1960s and 1970s cohorts have experienced much less income growth over the past decade (during their 40s and 30s respectively) than their predecessors experienced at the same age. Hence, the closing of the ‘age-adjusted’ income gap between cohorts is not driven by any cohort differences in household formation; it is driven by trends in unequivalised incomes.
Note that, as revealed by a comparison with Figure 2.2, the deterioration in the 1940s cohort’s income relative to the prior cohort at the same age has been less severe than for younger cohorts over the past decade. Median income for the 1940s cohort in their late 60s remains at, or slightly above, median income at the same age for the 1930s cohort. Cribb et al. (2013) made essentially the same point: real incomes were higher for those aged in their 60s and 70s in 2011–12 than for individuals of that age a decade earlier, but the same is not true for younger age groups of adults. Those authors also showed that the same is true
8 See figure 5.7 in Cribb et al. (2013).
9 Browne, Hood and Johnson, 2013; Joyce and Phillips, 2013. 10 See Figure 3.1 in the next chapter.
11 See Figure 3.2 in the next chapter.
www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r89.pdf

Trends in rates of homeownership across cohorts are one of the most striking of all the economic indicators considered in this report. The 1960s and (particularly) the 1970s cohorts are taking longer than their predecessors to get on the housing ladder, and the gap between cohorts has been growing over the last decade as homeownership rates for those born in the 1960s and 1970s have changed little.
We do not find evidence that renters in younger cohorts have been compensating for this by saving more. Those who do own homes appear to own properties of similar relative value to previous cohorts, and the proportion who own outright is no lower than for previous cohorts at the same age. Together, these factors provide tentative evidence that inequality in property wealth may be higher among the 1960s and 1970s cohorts than it was at the same age among those born in the 1940s and 1950
www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r89.pdf

I know it is difficult to understand. I will leave you to read it again.

Well I am not Maizie, but I have re-read the cut-and-paste that I personally referred to, and I fail to see how you arrive at your conclusion.

' But with or without equivalisation, the 1960s and 1970s cohorts have experienced much less income growth over the past decade (during their 40s and 30s respectively) than their predecessors experienced at the same age ... '.

In other words, from the early to late 2000s, which includes the worldwide economic crisis. How is this down to the EU?

Everything's the fault of the EU, MamaCaz

So it would seem,MaizieD

Has anyone else noticed that the quality of posts tends to be in inverse proportion to the quantity?