One managed to land a six-figure job in Kentucky, one of the lowest cost of living places that was largely passed over by the housing bubble. The major reason he's well-off is that his house was affordable and he went to a lower priced university and didn't need much in the way of student loans. He lives in a ~2000 sq. ft. house that cost about $175k when he bought it. Where I live that house would be $400k, and it's not even a major city. Median incomes where I live are no higher.

Another had a liquidity event. Another owns a hugely successful online company.

The vast majority -- vast majority -- of the peers I know do not live anything like what you describe. These are not slackers either. These are hard working, highly educated professionals. Many of them routinely pull 60 hour work weeks doing things like computer programming, business, marketing, and high-end interior design for wealthy clients.

I honestly have no idea how people making the median family income can live, unless they live in horrible neighborhoods or in the middle of nowhere.

I didn't say "Earth to Planet Trust Fund" just to be snarky. There is a culture of people who grew up with wealthy parents, had mostly paid for rides to places like MIT, and earn six figures, and really do have kind of a "why do they not eat cake?" view on this stuff. In my experience they're not bad people. They're just insulated and ignorant. They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about if they think their situation is anywhere near normal.

Again, public enemy #1 here is the housing bubble, which from an income/value ratio point of view is still in effect. #2 is the cost of college. The former has increased somewhat in quality since the previous generation, though not enough to justify a quadrupling (or more) in cost. The latter hasn't increased much in quality at all, but the cost has skyrocketed.

In the UK, our parents' generation paid zero. They got given grants...

That includes the elite, politician-farming universities.

The current government just tripled the fees, after one coalition partner promised to abolish them in the campaign. That's why students ended up trashing (actually the other partner's) HQ in 2010.

And, that other couple aside, we're by far the most extravagant people in our friend group (designers, developers, creative class all). Only a couple of our middle class friends own anything, much less expect to own two houses and cars.

The specter of wide swathes of middle class people who "expect" two houses and cars and European vacations is simply a strawman argument, conjured up to "prove" that these people "deserve what they get."

In 2006, 40 percent of home sales were for "second homes", with the typical buyer having a household income of $80,000.

>"tatsuke95's comment is ridiculously out of proportion"

I'm glad you think it's out of proportion, based on your personal anecdotes about your friends (except for two, but you've defined them as upper middle class, so they don't count!).

But the "wide swathes" of indebtedness, bankruptcies, defaults and deleveraging in the US says otherwise. Where have you been for the past five years? Those are facts. It occurs when people "live beyond their means", which is nearly synonymous with having too high expectations: you want more than you earn. Do you think it's the rich people living beyond their means? Is it the poor people buying cars and houses they can't afford? No, it's the middle class.

Note: the views casually related above may or may not represent the actual considered opinions of the management.

We do have the incentive. And we will extract that wealth. But it takes time, since "they" currently have the political power.

What you describe is what is happening in the real world. Reform everywhere so they get the pensions and benefits, but nobody after them will. This is happening both publicly and privately. Even unions are stiffing new members.

We'll have the last laugh, though. Eventually the boomers will need to divest. At that point they'll find out we don't have the money to buy their assets.

Hadn't thought of that. Might be quite funny...

I suppose they'll just give it to their offspring. So for now... kill rich kids? Just brainstorming here.

Much like our southern neighbours, our soon-to-be-retirees don't have much in savings, and the vast majority of their net-worth is tied up in their homes. Unlike the US, we haven't had a housing price adjustment yet. So these boomers are counting on having the current value of their home as their future retirement fund. But as we've learned, that number may as well be fairy dust until someone hands you a cheque.

So what happens when these boomers go to retire, and they find out nobody can afford (or wants) to buy their $500,000 McMansion? When every boomer actually has half, or worse, the amount of money to retire as they thought?

Goldman buys them all up at a bargain rate and rents them to those of us who can afford to not live in the global megaslum?

You are describing the upper echelon of lawyers and execs.

Also, no other Toys - I have a weight set (power rack, olympic weights, heavyweight bench, etc) that ran me 1300 brand new, other than the car and the house that is our most expensive purchase... ever. I could have sworn once we reached a six figure income we'd be "well off." I guess that is a dream.

But there were/are a generation of blue-collar, "middle class" people out there living the life I describe. I know some of them. They aren't lawyers and execs, they're public servants, unionized factory workers and such, most of whom make less money than me. Their boomer parents were middle-class wealthy, and their expectations are higher. Only the economy no longer supports it. So they fulfilled these expectations via copious amounts of debt. Then everything broke.