Sam Bidwell is Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute.
Why must British politics be characterised by tiresome intergenerational warfare? For every columnist who understands the problem of declining homeownership amongst young people, we are beset by two who insist that this is the result of the laziness and entitlement of the ‘snowflake generation’.
We’ve all seen those articles: “I worked hard, saved up, and paid into the system – why can’t younger people just do the same?” There is a small fortune to be made in churning out opinion pieces about how “kids these days” can’t afford a mortgage because of all the money that they spend on avocado toast – but why is this view so prevalent?
For baby boomers in particular – those born between 1946 and 1964 – it’s easy to see the appeal of this narrative. After all, our perspective on the economy is shaped almost entirely by personal experience. Those born in 1955 grew up in the long shadow of Britain’s post-war economic malaise and graduated from university (free of charge, mind you) into the turmoil of the mid-70s.
They then spent the peak of their careers in the boom years of the 1980s and 90s. The beige food and crumbling Victorian infrastructure of their childhoods gave way to a country that felt self-confident and dynamic. Crucially, they could afford a house, a car, and a family – as long as they put in the hard work. From the personal perspective of many baby boomers, this unprecedented improvement in their quality of living resulted from effort and ability. After all, they remember those innumerable late nights at the office and the sensible financial decisions they made along the way.
However, that hard work was only rewarded because of a policy environment that understood the central role that ambitious young people should play in driving growth. Alongside their tuition-free university, baby boomers benefitted from a falling tax burden throughout their careers (from 33.9 per cent of GDP in 1982 to 27.4 per cent in 1993) and Thatcher-era policies that expanded homeownership and incentivised share ownership. As David Willetts puts it, “the system has worked for Boomers at every stage of their lives.”
This is before we account for the unprecedented improvements in global conditions that characterised the second half of the 20th century. The global price of freight fell by 71 per cent between 1950 and 2020, making imported commodities from abroad far cheaper, while advances in medical technology saw life expectancy rise from 69 to 81 over the same period. On a whole host of metrics, quality of life improved enormously during the heyday of the baby boomers.
None of this is to say that older people didn’t work hard to get where they are now – but we should recognise that this hard work translated into material prosperity because of particular policy conditions.
So are young people really just work-shy? No – the apparent laziness of younger people today is the direct result of an economic environment that fails to offer them the same opportunities. In 1997, the average UK house price was about 3.5 times the average salary; today, it’s more like 8.3 times. Between 1981 and 1988, real hourly wages for people in their 20s grew by 23 per cent; since 2010, real hourly wages amongst the same demographic have essentially been stagnant.
Alongside soaring rental prices and the cost of university tuition, these conditions make it difficult for even the most industrious young people to achieve the same milestones as their parents and grandparents. Young people are working just as hard as previous generations, but are being squeezed by an economic policy designed to protect asset owners and cover the rising cost of pensions and social care.
When the prosperity of our parents feels so difficult to emulate, with homeownership relegated to a distant dream, is it any wonder that young people are refusing to work themselves to the bone? Quiet quitting, working from home, skipping out on Friday mornings to attend a yoga class – these are not the causes of our productivity problem, but signs that prosperity feels unattainable for far too many younger people.
And that avocado toast they seem so keen on? Perhaps increased spending on luxury consumer goods is driven by recognising the fact that saving each month is less lucrative than it once was. If you feel that you will never be able to own a home, why not enjoy yourself in the meantime?
If we want young people to work harder, we should start by ensuring their work is rewarded with real opportunities to earn, save, and invest. Opening up those opportunities starts with designing better policy, which promotes more housebuilding, delivers better prospects for young people of all academic abilities, and allows those starting their careers to keep more of the money they earn.
That’s why we’ve launched the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, which will develop policy by young people, for young people, working to deliver greater opportunity for the next generation. Get this right, and we can re-engage a generation in market economics and liberal democracy, as we did all those years ago.
Sam Bidwell is Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute.
Why must British politics be characterised by tiresome intergenerational warfare? For every columnist who understands the problem of declining homeownership amongst young people, we are beset by two who insist that this is the result of the laziness and entitlement of the ‘snowflake generation’.
We’ve all seen those articles: “I worked hard, saved up, and paid into the system – why can’t younger people just do the same?” There is a small fortune to be made in churning out opinion pieces about how “kids these days” can’t afford a mortgage because of all the money that they spend on avocado toast – but why is this view so prevalent?
For baby boomers in particular – those born between 1946 and 1964 – it’s easy to see the appeal of this narrative. After all, our perspective on the economy is shaped almost entirely by personal experience. Those born in 1955 grew up in the long shadow of Britain’s post-war economic malaise and graduated from university (free of charge, mind you) into the turmoil of the mid-70s.
They then spent the peak of their careers in the boom years of the 1980s and 90s. The beige food and crumbling Victorian infrastructure of their childhoods gave way to a country that felt self-confident and dynamic. Crucially, they could afford a house, a car, and a family – as long as they put in the hard work. From the personal perspective of many baby boomers, this unprecedented improvement in their quality of living resulted from effort and ability. After all, they remember those innumerable late nights at the office and the sensible financial decisions they made along the way.
However, that hard work was only rewarded because of a policy environment that understood the central role that ambitious young people should play in driving growth. Alongside their tuition-free university, baby boomers benefitted from a falling tax burden throughout their careers (from 33.9 per cent of GDP in 1982 to 27.4 per cent in 1993) and Thatcher-era policies that expanded homeownership and incentivised share ownership. As David Willetts puts it, “the system has worked for Boomers at every stage of their lives.”
This is before we account for the unprecedented improvements in global conditions that characterised the second half of the 20th century. The global price of freight fell by 71 per cent between 1950 and 2020, making imported commodities from abroad far cheaper, while advances in medical technology saw life expectancy rise from 69 to 81 over the same period. On a whole host of metrics, quality of life improved enormously during the heyday of the baby boomers.
None of this is to say that older people didn’t work hard to get where they are now – but we should recognise that this hard work translated into material prosperity because of particular policy conditions.
So are young people really just work-shy? No – the apparent laziness of younger people today is the direct result of an economic environment that fails to offer them the same opportunities. In 1997, the average UK house price was about 3.5 times the average salary; today, it’s more like 8.3 times. Between 1981 and 1988, real hourly wages for people in their 20s grew by 23 per cent; since 2010, real hourly wages amongst the same demographic have essentially been stagnant.
Alongside soaring rental prices and the cost of university tuition, these conditions make it difficult for even the most industrious young people to achieve the same milestones as their parents and grandparents. Young people are working just as hard as previous generations, but are being squeezed by an economic policy designed to protect asset owners and cover the rising cost of pensions and social care.
When the prosperity of our parents feels so difficult to emulate, with homeownership relegated to a distant dream, is it any wonder that young people are refusing to work themselves to the bone? Quiet quitting, working from home, skipping out on Friday mornings to attend a yoga class – these are not the causes of our productivity problem, but signs that prosperity feels unattainable for far too many younger people.
And that avocado toast they seem so keen on? Perhaps increased spending on luxury consumer goods is driven by recognising the fact that saving each month is less lucrative than it once was. If you feel that you will never be able to own a home, why not enjoy yourself in the meantime?
If we want young people to work harder, we should start by ensuring their work is rewarded with real opportunities to earn, save, and invest. Opening up those opportunities starts with designing better policy, which promotes more housebuilding, delivers better prospects for young people of all academic abilities, and allows those starting their careers to keep more of the money they earn.
That’s why we’ve launched the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, which will develop policy by young people, for young people, working to deliver greater opportunity for the next generation. Get this right, and we can re-engage a generation in market economics and liberal democracy, as we did all those years ago.