ON
← Back to feed
I’m an economist – the numbers that show we’ve got boomers all wrong
United Kingdom🏛️ PoliticsProgressive15 hr. ago

I’m an economist – the numbers that show we’ve got boomers all wrong

The article challenges common perceptions of baby boomers, arguing that they were not necessarily privileged compared to younger generations. It highlights that while early boomers benefited from relatively stable economies, affordable housing, and free education, later boomers faced significant economic challenges such as rising unemployment and industrial decline. The author, an economist, contrasts historical data with current conditions, noting that today's graduates earn significantly higher salaries than their 1960s counterparts. However, the article acknowledges that boomers experienced both advantages and hardships, suggesting that generational wealth disparities may stem from broader structural factors rather than mere luck.

A new analysis by economist Hamish McRae challenges long-held assumptions about the economic fortunes of baby boomers, suggesting that their success was not solely due to timing but also to structural changes and policy decisions that shaped their careers. Born between 1946 and 1964, boomers are often criticized by younger generations for having enjoyed advantages such as free higher education, stable employment, and relatively low living costs. However, McRae argues that this view overlooks the turbulent decades that followed their youth, including high unemployment, rising inflation, and declining job security. McRae's perspective is supported by data showing that early boomers, those born in the late 1940s, had a significantly different experience compared to later boomers. For example, a trainee journalist in 1966 earned £800 annually, which equates to approximately £13,360 in today’s currency. This figure, according to the Bank of England’s inflation calculator, reflects the modest starting salaries for university graduates during the early years of the boomers' professional lives. At the time, universities were free, and students received financial support through grants, making higher education accessible to a small percentage of school leavers. Housing was also affordable, with the average price for a three-bedroom flat in London in 1966 being around £4,760, or roughly £75,800 in current value. Despite these initial benefits, the economic landscape shifted dramatically in the following decades. Unemployment rates began to rise sharply in the 1970s, peaking at 5.6 percent in 1978 before climbing even further in the 1980s, reaching over 12 percent. Industrial unrest became common, driven by soaring inflation, which hit a peak of 24.2 percent in 1975. The Bank of England responded by raising interest rates to as high as 17 percent in 1979, maintaining levels above 8 percent until 1992. These economic conditions created significant instability for many boomers, especially those working in manufacturing or coal mining. For those who managed to secure university degrees, the early years offered promising opportunities. However, the subsequent decades brought considerable hardship. Apprentices in 1966 earned as little as £4 to £6 weekly, translating to £3,500 to £5,200 annually in today’s money. Average weekly earnings were only £20, equivalent to £17,370 today. Although wages eventually increased, job security declined sharply, particularly in sectors affected by deindustrialization and global economic shifts. The period from the 1970s through the 1980s marked a turning point for many boomers. While some found stability in service industries, others faced prolonged periods of uncertainty. The early 1980s recession proved particularly damaging, with unemployment reaching 11.9 percent in 1984. These developments underscored the complex and uneven nature of the boomers’ economic journey, challenging simplistic narratives about their prosperity. As the debate continues, the focus remains on how historical context and policy decisions influenced the experiences of each generation. The discussion highlights the importance of considering both opportunity and adversity when evaluating generational differences in economic outcomes.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Go to the primary sources (4)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

1 reports

iNews logoiNewsIndependentProgressiveFactual 50Objective 6015 hr. ago
I’m an economist – the numbers that show we’ve got boomers all wrong

The article challenges common perceptions of baby boomers, arguing that they were not necessarily privileged compared to younger generations. It highlights that while early boomers benefited from relatively stable economies, affordable housing, and free education, later boomers faced significant economic challenges such as rising unemployment and industrial decline. The author, an economist, contrasts historical data with current conditions, noting that today's graduates earn significantly higher salaries than their 1960s counterparts. However, the article acknowledges that boomers experienced both advantages and hardships, suggesting that generational wealth disparities may stem from broader structural factors rather than mere luck.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the debate around generational wealth and privilege in a way that emphasizes systemic advantages for boomers, potentially downplaying contemporary challenges. While it presents historical data objectively, the emphasis on past economic stability and educational benefits suggests a

Why these scores (Factual 50 · Objective 60): Factually, the article discusses baby boomers and generational wealth, which is unrelated to the primary source document about graduate salaries. Objectivity is moderate as it presents multiple viewpoints without clear bias.

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories