2018-05-16 10:29:42 UTC
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
Don't bother too much about the amount needed for a decent retirement
(the ostensible theme of the article). This is about the Guardian's
faux-outrage that "about a third" of future retiring citizens will need
to have a higher income because they won't own their home (outright) and
will need to allow for rent.
Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting
"...around one in three..."
But when has it ever been any better than that?
"Around one in three" (with a minimum of around 29%) never were
house-buyers/owners, even when owner-occupation was at its peak
proportion of households. And it hasn't changed all that much, even so.
And before the 1980s, the Guardian and its supporters would have been
perfectly happy with the prospect of 50% or more of households living in
local authority or other social accommodation, permanently excluded from
owning their own homes. There would have been no hand-wringing over the
prospect of *their* having to find, or be credited with, housing costs
So, even with a minor adjustment (maybe, maybe not) to the proportion
renting in retirement as compared with trends up to the 2000s, the
percentage renting does not change significantly. It has been about 2:1
(within a few points) for decades already.