Coffee House

I’m part of the ‘jilted generation’ – so why do I think things are better than ever?

9 May 2014

4:59 PM

9 May 2014

4:59 PM

Having been born in 1983, I am a part of Ed Howker’s ‘jilted generation’.  I think it is quite reasonable for him to argue that governments of all parties have made choices which do not reflect our interests, or those of future generations.

They have increased public spending, which will reduce medium term growth and diminish our future earnings; they have borrowed eye-watering amounts of money which we will have to pay back; they have taken far too long to undertake vital reforms like putting in place a reasonable schedule of increases in the pension age. More young people think that the moon landings were faked than think that the Government will be able to provide the same level of benefits available today when they retire.

Does Ed think our parents couldn’t have made similar complaints?

In the 1970s, Britain had experienced decades of relative economic decline. Large parts of British industry were hopelessly uncompetitive. It was the era of the three day week and politicians of all parties had found the country almost ungovernable.

We need to keep our situation today in some perspective. The economy was hardly in great shape last year, when I got married, but circumstances in 2013 were far more promising than they were in 1977 when my parents got married. We need to realise just how revolutionary improvements in living standards have been, even in developed economies and even in our lifetimes.


Dubious statistics about median household earnings have led too many people to the clearly erroneous conclusion that progress in living standards has stalled for a generation. Even some who should know better like Tim Harford – the ‘Undercover Economist’ at the Financial Times – who has written recently about how he believes living standards have stagnated in the developed world.

All the statistics below are for the UK and – where possible – compare 1983 to the latest year for which data is available. There are a whole host of ways in which your life is probably better than it would have been thirty years ago:

  • You earn more. Average earnings – in 2010 prices – have risen by 38 per cent from £16,020 in 1983 to £22,110 in 2013, despite the severe recession that has seen earnings fall from their peak in 2007. Of course, experiences differ, but research by Pew in the United States shows that the vast majority of people earn considerably more than their parents did at the same age.
  • You are less likely to die. The adult death rate – the number of people who we can expect to die between the ages of 15 and 60 – has fallen by 30 per cent from 104 per 1000 people in 1990 to 73 per 1000 people in 2012.
  • Your baby is less likely to die. The infant mortality rate – the number of babies who die before the age of one – has fallen by 58 per cent from 10.1 per 1000 live births in 1983 to 4.2 per 1000 live births in 2011.
  • You are less likely to be the victim of a crime. The number of crimes reported in the Crime Survey for England and Wales fell by 35 per cent from around 240 per 1000 people in 1983 to around 160 per 1000 people in the year ending September 2012. There is an extensive debate over the quality of the crime statistics, but the trend does now at least appear to be firmly in the right direction.
  • You are more likely to travel abroad. The number of trips abroad has risen by 138 per cent from around 370 per thousand people to around 890 per thousand people.
  • You are more likely to have been to university. In 1992, just 17 per cent of adults had graduated from a higher education course. In 2013, that figure reached 38 per cent.
  • The environment around you has become more pleasant (in many ways):
    •  You breathe cleaner air. This is a bit more of a mixed bag, but urban average annual levels of background PM10 – the small particles which can penetrate the deepest part of the lungs such as the bronchioles or alveoli – are down by about half, from 35 μg m-3 in 1992 to 18 μg m-3 in 2013.
    • The water in the rivers is cleaner. The percentage of total river length in England that is of ‘good’ biological quality has risen from about 63 per cent in 1990 to about 73 per cent in 2009. Over the same period, the percentage of total river length that is of “good” chemical quality has risen from about 55 per cent to about 80 per cent.
    • Vandalism and graffiti are on the decline.
  • You are less likely to be injured at work. The number of injuries requiring an over 3-day absence from work is down from 1,500 per 100,000 workers in 2001-02 to 810 per 100,000 workers in 2012-13 and the number of injuries requiring an over 7-day absence from work is down from 980 per 100,000 workers in 2003-04 to 610 per 100,000 workers in 2012-13.
  • You are more likely to own all kinds of goods. From 1980 to 2011 the percentage of households owning…
    • …a car or van increased from 60 per cent to 75 per cent;
    • …central heating increased from 59 per cent to 96 per cent;
    • …a washing machine increased from 79 per cent to 97 per cent; and
    • …a telephone increased from 72 per cent to 88 per cent.
  • And from 1996-97 to 2011 the percentage of households owning…
    • …a tumble dryer increased from 51 per cent to 56 per cent;
    • …a dishwasher increased from 20 per cent to 41 per cent;
    • …a microwave increased from 75 per cent to 92 per cent;
    • …a mobile phone increased from 16 per cent to 87 per cent (many of those mobile phones are, by even recent standards, amazing – one US expert calculated it would have cost over $3 million to replicate an iPhone’s features in 1991); and
    • …a home computer increased from 27 per cent to 79 per cent.
  • And the percentage of households with a connection to the Internet increased from 9 per cent in 1998-99 to 77 per cent in 2011.

Again, all of those statistics describe progress right here in the United Kingdom and all those improvements in living standards have taken place within my lifetime and affect much more than 1 per cent of the income distribution. If you think that real earnings haven’t increased, how exactly have people been able to afford all those nice things?

And the raw increase in consumption probably understates our real progress as it misses that there is a greater variety of goods available to us thanks to an increasingly diverse global market place, which we also value. Research by the New York Fed in 2005 found that the ‘value to [US] consumers of global variety growth in the 1972-2001 period was roughly $260 billion.’

Of course, the reason why it is hard to measure living standards (or even more woolly concepts like ‘well-being’) is that we then have what is called an index number problem: how should we weigh up all that progress against those things that are harder now, like affording a home in London?

You need to answer that question for yourself. If some demon came to you in the night and offered this trade, would you take it?

You can have a cheap flat, but in return you will have to give up your mobile phone, your computer and your Internet connection. No Facebook for you. You might not have a car or be able to travel abroad. Kiss that holiday in sunny Florida goodbye. And there will be a significantly higher chance that you will be seriously hurt in an industrial accident, die young, or see your child die young.

I am confident that I would refuse such an offer. Britain is a better place for the hard work of the countless people who have made their contribution – large or small – to human progress over the last thirty years. We are lucky to be children of the Thatcherite revolution and have grown up in a country with a functioning market economy open to the world.

There are plenty of challenges left. Britain’s tax code is in desperate need of reform, to give just one example, and our democracy is fraying around the edges. We should reject economic policy too obsessed with performance in the next quarter at the expense of prosperity over the next quarter century. But we need to see our task for what it is: a golden opportunity to build on the progress made by our parents; to build a still better world.

The next Spectator debate: ‘Stop whining young people, you’ve never had it so good’ will feature Ed Howker, Paul Flatters, Katie Morley and Ruth Porter going head-to-head on 17 June. Click here to book tickets.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Donna InSussex

    In 1982 my parents, 19 years old at the time, bought their first house and had a baby (me). My father was able to provide for his young family on an entry level wage having just completed an apprenticeship.

    My sister and I are both in our early 30s, both have £20k plus of student debt, and both see home ownership as a far-off aspiration. She has decided to put off having children until 35 at the earliest because she and her boyfriend have calculated that they won’t be able to afford a child before then.

    The question is not “is life getting better?” Capitalism always delivers progress in terms of making ‘stuff’ cheaper. The question is: are the opportunities that our parents had, also available to this generation no matter what their background? The answer, as many people know from their own personal experience, is no.

    Life may have gotten better for the upper middle classes, or anyone lucky enough to have bought a property in London pre 1995, but the vast majority of the population are getting left behind, and they know it.

    Why has the Spectator become a cheerleader for the Conservatives? If it continues in this vein I’ll be cancelling my subscription.

    • balance_and_reason

      Did you not read the above article…do you go through life on transmit only?

      • Donna InSussex

        Yes i did, and no i don’t.

    • Matthew Sinclair

      As I said, experiences differ when it comes to incomes. Averages are imperfect, but they aren’t party political propaganda. It is worth noting that the cover article making a similar point to mine here was written by someone who tried to become a UKIP candidate.
      And, while your sister may struggle to afford to buy a house, she will enjoy a whole load of other improvements in her quality of life, of the kind described above, and I think they count for quite a lot.

      • Donna InSussex

        Of course experiences differ, but the key question is surely: on average, do people feel that living standards are improving from generation to generation?

        Polling over the last few years has suggested that most parents fear their children will have a poorer quality of life than they have enjoyed,

        I suspect that’s because what people really think about when they assess their quality of life isn’t the number of gadgets and gizmos they own, but how stable and secure they feel. With a foot on the housing ladder becoming increasingly difficult to attain, that stability is being lost, and Wifi enabled mobile phones seem like more of a consolation prize than a better deal.

        • Matthew Sinclair

          Whether they are right or wrong, the fact that parents fear their children “might” have a poorer quality of life in the future doesn’t mean that we have a poorer quality of life than our parents now. Does it?
          People are more prosperous, safe and healthy. I quoted a whole range of ways in which the human experience has improved. To dismiss all of that as just “gadgets and gizmos” is silly, although dismissing gadgets and gizmos is also silly when they include devices like washing machines, dishwashers and telephones.


    EXCELLENT article – know of nowhere else where this analysed so comprehensively

    ‘democracy fraying round edges’ – EURO elections & EU referendum should be a massive push-back – Swiss referenda as a MODEL > ‘NO MINARETS’ NO UNRESTRICTED EU IMMIGRATION

    UNI approx 2/10 > 4/10 – not necessarily a good thing – the capacity for sustained written work (the requirement of higher education) may exist in only 2/10 population. Also calling say Luton Polytechnic ‘University of Bedfordshire’ does not boost IQ of the students there. If uni destroys work ethic of less bright students then clearly very HARMFUL – also life there deracinated – may reduce patriotism

  • Fergus Pickering

    Splendid stuff. Absolutely true. But here come the miseries.

  • Raw England


    The sneering, foreign ghost meandering throughout your piece is: We have no future.

    Unless you count being the minority to an aggressive, violent immigrant majority in our own country, a future.

    • Chris Morriss

      Yes: if this sort of article is the best that the ‘Tax Payers Alliance’ can do, then it’s a pretty poor show.
      All that is written may be true, although the spin in the article makes me dizzy.
      What is not mentioned is that the quality of life in this country is now vastly poorer than is was then, with a lot of it due to the ‘I’ word, that we really aren’t allowed to mention.

      • Raw England

        As always, its a piece from the skewed, toxic vantage-point of a London Liberal.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Fab hair – that was me in t’ 80s – like.

  • Smithersjones2013

    Howker is not the only one using dodgy spin and statistics

    You are less likely to die.

    No we are likely to live longer but we are still as likely to die.

    You are less likely to be the victim of a crime.

    No if you are talking about the British Crime Survey People think they are less likely to be a victim of crime and if you check the actual police recorded figures (the ones they admit they have been toning down) the peak for Murder, Violent Crime and crime in general was around 2005. Not only that but the Prison population has doubled since the 1980’s

    Then Sinclair goes on to list all those technological advances that in no small part are supposed have to contributed to Climate Change so perhaps it was misguided to quote such statistics. He would have been better to reference today’s far more stable inflation and base interest rates as examples of why things are better today.

    However as Sinclair and Howker were not around in 1983 they really are talking out of the rear orifices. They cannot realistically compare and the fact is despite all the hardships of the times, society was better back then and the reason why it was better can be simply encapsulated in one phrase. Society was genuine then. You could trust in it and in people and still did. You can trust in nothing today. 30 years of political lies, cynicism and divisive political and social engineering have seen to that and the product is a dumbed down jilted generation that whines incessantly about how hard done by they are when no previous generation has been spoilt by consumerism in anywhere near the same way.

    • Matthew Sinclair

      On the likelihood of death: at some point we will all die, but in each individual year we will probably not die. As I said at the start of my set of bullet points, I was comparing two years (where possible, 1983 and the latest year for which statistics are available). You are considerably less likely to have died in 2012 than in 1990. At best your point is grammatical nitpicking, it is really just wrong. To call this an example of “spin” on my part is absurd.
      On university education: no one forced the students to go; they chose higher education. Maybe they regret going as a mistake, but I’m inclined to think that they valued their time at university and they therefore are fortunate to have gone where their parents did not.
      On crime: as I said, there is an extensive debate over the statistics, but there is every reason to think that – partly as a result of decisions from people like Michael Howard to lock a lot of criminals up – crime has declined somewhat.

  • CharlietheChump

    And for the next 10 seasons Man U will not appear in the Champions League (or the top 4 of the Premier League).

    Life is good.

    • you_kid

      Some will say there is a team to compensate for that loss five miles down the road.

    • Smithersjones2013

      Well you do say your name is Charlie the chump. Why don’t you bet on that. I’m sure the betting companies will take your money off you.