Discussion:
All the fuss about one in three, but...
(too old to reply)
JNugent
2018-05-16 10:29:42 UTC
Permalink
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>

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.

QUOTE:
Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting
ENDQUOTE

"...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
in retirement.

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.
johnny-knowall
2018-05-16 10:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000
-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
Do you really believe that pro-Blairite, pro-Remain rag?
Post by JNugent
Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting
ENDQUOTE
"...around one in three..."
Well, at least they won’t have to see their property sold, just to pay care
home fees to some money-grabbing Eastern European employing slave labour in
order to maximise their profits.
JNugent
2018-05-16 10:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000
-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
Do you really believe that pro-Blairite, pro-Remain rag?
That depends on whether what it is saying is credible.

Often, the the answer to that is "No".

But even the Guardian isn't factually wrong all the time.

It isn't factually wrong this time. It (or its contributor) is simply
drawing fallacious conclusions (ie, that the near to mid term future is
significantly different from the recent past).
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting
ENDQUOTE
"...around one in three..."
Well, at least they won’t have to see their property sold, just to pay care
home fees to some money-grabbing Eastern European employing slave labour in
order to maximise their profits.
Indeed. It's good to see your support for taxpayers' money being used to
maintain and enhance property bequests.
johnny-knowall
2018-05-16 11:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260
000
-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
Do you really believe that pro-Blairite, pro-Remain rag?
That depends on whether what it is saying is credible.
Often, the the answer to that is "No".
But even the Guardian isn't factually wrong all the time.
It isn't factually wrong this time. It (or its contributor) is simply
drawing fallacious conclusions (ie, that the near to mid term future is
significantly different from the recent past).
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting
ENDQUOTE
"...around one in three..."
Well, at least they won’t have to see their property sold, just to pay care
home fees to some money-grabbing Eastern European employing slave labour in
order to maximise their profits.
Indeed. It's good to see your support for taxpayers' money being used to
maintain and enhance property bequests.
It seems strange that the laws of the market seem to be cast aside when it
comes to property. It is not anyone’s fault if they find themselves in a
desirable property area and prices rise by an average of 10% a year.

In fact, it could be argued that most people have contributed to the
desirability by *not* playing loud music, or keeping dangerous dogs, drug
dealing, nor having a garden full of scrap cars or other detritus; so why
shouldn’t they benefit financially?

I’m sure their bequests will contribute to the wider economy through
various tax regimes.
JNugent
2018-05-16 15:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260
000
-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
Do you really believe that pro-Blairite, pro-Remain rag?
That depends on whether what it is saying is credible.
Often, the the answer to that is "No".
But even the Guardian isn't factually wrong all the time.
It isn't factually wrong this time. It (or its contributor) is simply
drawing fallacious conclusions (ie, that the near to mid term future is
significantly different from the recent past).
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting
ENDQUOTE
"...around one in three..."
Well, at least they won’t have to see their property sold, just to pay care
home fees to some money-grabbing Eastern European employing slave labour in
order to maximise their profits.
Indeed. It's good to see your support for taxpayers' money being used to
maintain and enhance property bequests.
It seems strange that the laws of the market seem to be cast aside when it
comes to property. It is not anyone’s fault if they find themselves in a
desirable property area and prices rise by an average of 10% a year.
In fact, it could be argued that most people have contributed to the
desirability by *not* playing loud music, or keeping dangerous dogs, drug
dealing, nor having a garden full of scrap cars or other detritus; so why
shouldn’t they benefit financially?
I’m sure their bequests will contribute to the wider economy through
various tax regimes.
Where is the real johnny-knowall and what have you done with him?
Incubus
2018-05-16 15:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260
000 -for-retirement-says-report>
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.
Do you really believe that pro-Blairite, pro-Remain rag?
That depends on whether what it is saying is credible. Often, the the
answer to that is "No". But even the Guardian isn't factually wrong all
the time. It isn't factually wrong this time. It (or its contributor) is
simply drawing fallacious conclusions (ie, that the near to mid term future
is significantly different from the recent past).
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by JNugent
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees
would eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...around one in three..."
Well, at least they won’t have to see their property sold, just to pay
care home fees to some money-grabbing Eastern European employing slave
labour in order to maximise their profits.
Indeed. It's good to see your support for taxpayers' money being used to
maintain and enhance property bequests.
It seems strange that the laws of the market seem to be cast aside when it
comes to property. It is not anyone’s fault if they find themselves in a
desirable property area and prices rise by an average of 10% a year.
In fact, it could be argued that most people have contributed to the
desirability by *not* playing loud music, or keeping dangerous dogs, drug
dealing, nor having a garden full of scrap cars or other detritus; so why
shouldn’t they benefit financially?
I’m sure their bequests will contribute to the wider economy through various
tax regimes.
Where is the real johnny-knowall and what have you done with him?
He listened to Xasthur again and experienced an altered state of consciousness.
Incubus
2018-05-16 11:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...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 in
retirement.
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.
Let's not forget that the average person will need to work an extra two years
thanks to Gordon Brown's pension pot raid, for which he deserves to be shot in
the head.
JNugent
2018-05-16 15:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...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 in
retirement.
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.
Let's not forget that the average person will need to work an extra two years
thanks to Gordon Brown's pension pot raid, for which he deserves to be shot in
the head.
There was a time when I was just about the only person here pointing
that out, so you certainly don't need to convince me!
Incubus
2018-05-16 15:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees
would eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...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 in
retirement.
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.
Let's not forget that the average person will need to work an extra two
years thanks to Gordon Brown's pension pot raid, for which he deserves to be
shot in the head.
There was a time when I was just about the only person here pointing that
out, so you certainly don't need to convince me!
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
Tim
2018-05-17 11:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees
would eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...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 in
retirement.
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.
Let's not forget that the average person will need to work an extra two
years thanks to Gordon Brown's pension pot raid, for which he deserves to be
shot in the head.
There was a time when I was just about the only person here pointing that
out, so you certainly don't need to convince me!
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388
abelard
2018-05-17 11:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
what connection is there between the two?

are you arguing that two rongs make a rite?

if you even can identify any appropriate or relevant rites and rongs?
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2018-05-17 11:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
what connection is there between the two?
are you arguing that two rongs make a rite?
Of course two wrongs don't make a right. It may be that no paper should
be taken completely seriously. Of course how seriously you take a
newspaper may depend on your political leanings as much as the accuracy
of the newspaper.
Post by abelard
if you even can identify any appropriate or relevant rites and rongs?
--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-05-17 12:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
what connection is there between the two?
are you arguing that two rongs make a rite?
Of course two wrongs don't make a right. It may be that no paper should
be taken completely seriously. Of course how seriously you take a
newspaper may depend on your political leanings as much as the accuracy
of the newspaper.
I used to wish that there were an unbiased newspaper, but now I realise
that no-one would buy it. People don't really want truth, they just
want something that props up their opinions. The Spectator will
sometimes print completely contradictory opinion pieces on opposite
pages, which (at least for me) is an interesting way of doing things;
but even then, one of them will just end up being annoying to the
reader, since they won't agree with it. It takes a lot of effort to get
past that.
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
if you even can identify any appropriate or relevant rites and rongs?
johnny-knowall
2018-05-17 12:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
what connection is there between the two?
are you arguing that two rongs make a rite?
Of course two wrongs don't make a right. It may be that no paper should
be taken completely seriously. Of course how seriously you take a
newspaper may depend on your political leanings as much as the accuracy
of the newspaper.
I used to wish that there were an unbiased newspaper, but now I realise
that no-one would buy it. People don't really want truth, they just
want something that props up their opinions. The Spectator will
sometimes print completely contradictory opinion pieces on opposite
pages, which (at least for me) is an interesting way of doing things;
but even then, one of them will just end up being annoying to the
reader, since they won't agree with it. It takes a lot of effort to get
past that.
The Guardian used to do something like that, with an email debate between two
people of opposing views printed across a couple of pages. It was quite
interesting to read these opinions and how the arguments became more fixated
on details as the exchange carried on.

I haven’t seen that for ages, but since the paper was taken over by the
current Blairite, establishment supporting, over-emotional woman; the quality
of the content has declined exponentially.

There will never be a Guardian editor to rival Peter Preston. He had a great
sense of humour.
I remember after (I think) Robert Maxwell died, he wrote an editorial piece
which mentioned the passing of a renowned newspaper proprietor - and I
started to read it thinking “why the hell is he heaping so much praise on
that crook?”

It was only towards the end that he revealed he was talking about an ex-owner
of The Racing Post who had obviously passed away during the same week.

I bet he loved the idea of readers turning purple with rage at the
effervescence seemingly showered on Maxwell, only to realise their mistake if
they bothered to read through to the end and not jump to an instant
judgement.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-05-17 12:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
what connection is there between the two?
are you arguing that two rongs make a rite?
Of course two wrongs don't make a right. It may be that no paper should
be taken completely seriously. Of course how seriously you take a
newspaper may depend on your political leanings as much as the accuracy
of the newspaper.
I used to wish that there were an unbiased newspaper, but now I realise
that no-one would buy it. People don't really want truth, they just
want something that props up their opinions. The Spectator will
sometimes print completely contradictory opinion pieces on opposite
pages, which (at least for me) is an interesting way of doing things;
but even then, one of them will just end up being annoying to the
reader, since they won't agree with it. It takes a lot of effort to get
past that.
The Guardian used to do something like that, with an email debate between two
people of opposing views printed across a couple of pages. It was quite
interesting to read these opinions and how the arguments became more fixated
on details as the exchange carried on.
I can't help wondering if newspapers have got worse, or if they were
always so partisan. I have some old newspapers (including one covering
the Munich air disaster), and they seem much less histrionic. My dad
used to (and still does) get the Daily Mirror; but even when I was a
boy, it was obvious that they would pick the ugliest, most gurning,
photographs when it came to illustrating stories about people they don't
like. I have to say that now, whenever I see that sort of trick, it
makes me take a newspaper less seriously, while remaining aware that
others just find more subtle ways of doing the same thing. Trouble is,
that's exactly what people want. It's like a sort of Punch and Judy show.
Post by johnny-knowall
I haven’t seen that for ages, but since the paper was taken over by the
current Blairite, establishment supporting, over-emotional woman; the quality
of the content has declined exponentially.
There will never be a Guardian editor to rival Peter Preston. He had a great
sense of humour.
I remember after (I think) Robert Maxwell died, he wrote an editorial piece
which mentioned the passing of a renowned newspaper proprietor - and I
started to read it thinking “why the hell is he heaping so much praise on
that crook?”
It was only towards the end that he revealed he was talking about an ex-owner
of The Racing Post who had obviously passed away during the same week.
I bet he loved the idea of readers turning purple with rage at the
effervescence seemingly showered on Maxwell, only to realise their mistake if
they bothered to read through to the end and not jump to an instant
judgement.
Incubus
2018-05-17 12:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees
would eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...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 in
retirement.
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.
Let's not forget that the average person will need to work an extra two
years thanks to Gordon Brown's pension pot raid, for which he deserves to
be shot in the head.
There was a time when I was just about the only person here pointing that
out, so you certainly don't need to convince me!
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
There's nothing wrong with the Telegraph and the Times. I don't read The Sun
or The Express. The Daily Mail is mainly about shifting units but doesn't
suffer from blind devotion to ideology half as much as The Guardian.
JNugent
2018-05-17 12:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by JNugent
...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
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.
QUOTE: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees
would eventually be renting ENDQUOTE
"...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 in
retirement.
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.
Let's not forget that the average person will need to work an extra two
years thanks to Gordon Brown's pension pot raid, for which he deserves to be
shot in the head.
There was a time when I was just about the only person here pointing that
out, so you certainly don't need to convince me!
Well, it was aimed more at people who are likely to take the Guardian
seriously (*cough Tim*)...
And I should take the ignorant crap spewed by the
Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Times seriously?
That has nothing to do with it.

Even dyed-in-the-wool Guardianistas must recognise that the proportion
of owner-occupiers has changed only slightly over the past ten years and
that the ratio is still in the order of 2:1 (o/o v. tenants), meaning
that the Graun's shock-horror story is pure invention, trying to make a
mountain out of a worm-cast.
BurfordTJustice
2018-05-16 11:40:44 UTC
Permalink
"JNugent" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: ...it's never been much better and it has been a lot worse.
:
:
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/16/average-person-will-need-260000-for-retirement-says-report>
:
: 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.
:
: QUOTE:
: Royal London said it expected that around one in three retirees would
: eventually be renting
: ENDQUOTE
:
: "...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
: in retirement.
:
: 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.
:
:
:
Loading...