Youth Social Policy

Article

Urban Studies 2019, Vol. 56(1) 210–225 � Urban Studies Journal Limited 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0042098018775363 journals.sagepub.com/home/usj

Inter-generational housing inequalities: ‘Baby Boomers’ versus the ‘Millennials’

Jennifer Hoolachan Cardiff University, UK

Kim McKee St Andrews University, UK

Abstract In contrast to the post-war period, the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the UK have been characterised by the advancement of neoliberal policies including privatisation of the housing sys- tem and employment casualisation. Consequently, there are growing socioeconomic inequalities between those born in the post-war period – the ‘Baby Boomers’ – and the younger generation – the ‘Millennials’. Such inequalities have led to narratives of inter-generational conflict with Baby Boomers framed as jeopardising the futures of Millennials. Drawing on Mannheim’s theory of social generations, the concept of generational habitus and qualitative data from 49 Baby Boomers and 62 Millennials, we unpack the ways in which inter-generational inequalities are inter- subjectively understood and discussed. Our data indicate that while young people are aware of inter-generational inequalities, they do not feel resentful towards their parents’ generation for profiting at their expense. Instead, many blame the government for not representing their inter- ests. Thus, narratives of inter-generational conflict misleadingly direct blame towards the agency of Baby Boomers rather than political structures.

Keywords Baby Boom, generation, generational habitus, housing, Millennial, youth

Received December 2016; accepted April 2018

20 21

49 62

Introduction

In the immediate aftermath of the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the European Union (EU) in June 2016 (or ‘Brexit’), there was an outpouring of media headlines emphasising a generational divide in which nearly three-quarters of under 25s had voted to remain in the EU while the majority of the over 50s voted to leave (Moore, 2016). News headlines such as ‘Millennials’ ‘‘fury’’ over baby boomers’ vote for Brexit’ (Boult, 2016) and ‘Family rifts over Brexit: ‘‘I can barely look at my par- ents’’’ (Cosslett, 2016) indicate some of the emotional consequences of the decision to leave. The sensationalist style of these head- lines aside, these narratives of inter- generational conflict promote the message that there are many angry and upset young people blaming their parents for jeopardis- ing their futures.

Yet, the Brexit debate is not the first time that Baby Boomers and later generations have been pitted against each other. The inter-generational inequalities in the UK, and Global North, which have intensified in recent years, have also led to narratives of inter-generational conflict. Describing such narratives as a ‘major fault line in modern welfare states’, Higgs and Gilleard (2010: 1439) critically discuss the argument that the wealth enjoyed by the post-war Baby Boomers, facilitated by a strong welfare sys- tem, can only be sustained through cutbacks in education, employment and social rights among younger generations. Socioeconomic disparities between Baby Boomers and younger Millennials have further been detailed by a range of academics, policy- makers and political commentators (Bessant et al., 2017; Howker and Malik, 2010;

Hurley et al., 2017; Piachaud et al., 2009; Willetts, 2010). Significant, however, are the different ways in which these authors frame their arguments. Bessant et al. (2017), for example, take a relational, as opposed to a deterministic or individualistic, stance, pla- cing emphasis on structural inequalities and how young people interact with them. In contrast, Willetts (2010) emphasises the agency of Baby Boomers; apparent in the title of his book: The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future – And Why They Should Give it Back. Similarly, while Howker and Malik (2010) conveyed an intention of not blaming Baby Boomers for the difficulties of Millennials, as Berry and Freeland (2011) point out, their claim that the older generation has enjoyed a ‘21 year binge’ implies an accusatory tone.

Using this conflict narrative as a starting point, this paper argues that while inter- generational inequalities certainly exist, and one is right to be concerned about them, it is likewise important to approach this issue in a nuanced manner. The aim of this paper is to unpack what people say and how they feel about inter-generational inequalities. In doing so, we draw on two research projects that focused specifically on housing. Thus, we use housing as a social issue through which to explore inter-generational inequalities while also incorporating discussions of the labour market, which, as we have argued elsewhere (Hoolachan et al., 2017), cannot be neatly dis- entangled from the housing market.

Before proceeding, it is worth addressing the focus of this paper as being on inter-, rather than intra-, generational inequalities. In housing studies, intra-generational inequalities are evidenced in research high- lighting that some young people, but not all, receive gifts and loans from family members

Corresponding author:

Jennifer Hoolachan, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue,

Cardiff, CF10 3WT, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Hoolachan and McKee 211

to facilitate access to the housing market (Druta and Ronald, 2017; Heath and Calvert, 2013), as well as evidence of housing wealth being concentrated among the top earners among young adults (Arundel, 2017). We have considered intra-generational inequalities elsewhere (Hoolachan et al., 2017; Moore et al., 2015) and will touch upon them again in this paper, but our principal aim is to address inter-generational inequal- ities and relationships. In doing so, the paper makes four contributions to existing litera- ture. First, our data counter the conflict nar- rative espoused by authors such as Willetts (2010) by arguing that placing blame on the agency of Baby Boomers for the struggles of Millennials deflects attention from the politi- cal structures underpinning these inequalities. Second, we extend the scant academic evi- dence concerning how these inequalities are intersubjectively understood by both Baby Boomers and Millennials. Third, our argu- ments add a further dimension to the concept of ‘Generation Rent’ – a term that has been used to describe the increasing numbers of young people living in the private rented sec- tor (PRS) as a result of being unable to access other forms of housing tenure. While this paper is not concerned with Generation Rent per se, the argument that young people direct their frustration at political structures instead of Baby Boomers lends additional insight into the experiences of those struggling to navigate precarious housing markets. Fourth, although our arguments are constructed in the context of the UK, given that similar patterns of inter-generational inequalities and narratives of conflict have been noted in other parts of the world including Australia (Cigdem and Whelan, 2017), New Zealand (Hurley et al., 2017) and Japan (Hirayama and Ronald, 2008), the arguments presented in this paper have broader international relevance.

The next section outlines the concept of social generations, drawing on the work of Mannheim (1952) and more recent

developments of ‘generational habitus’ by Woodman and Wyn (2015). As will be seen, the ideas of these theorists have informed our analysis. This is followed by a discussion of inter-generational inequalities and the difficult circumstances that Millennials cur- rently face. The research which provided the empirical basis of this paper is then outlined followed by the findings, which are presented thematically and subsequently discussed.

Social generations

Recent literature concerning the contempo- rary nature of youth in comparison with previous generations has drawn upon the- ories of life-course transitions (Coulter and Scott, 2015; Stone et al., 2014) and reflexive individualisation (Threadgold and Nilan, 2009). In this paper, we use the alternative theoretical lens of Mannheim’s (1952) ‘social generations’ along with Woodman and Wyn’s (2015) concept of ‘generational habi- tus’, which was heavily influenced by the work of Mannheim as well as Bourdieu. As Woodman and Wyn (2015) argue, Mannheim’s and Bourdieu’s works offer a useful mechanism for understanding the lives of young people that avoids being overly deterministic or individualistic. Instead, Mannheim and Bourdieu take a dialectical approach in that they account for the rela- tionship between structural limits and oppor- tunities, and how people interact with them. As will be seen, this dialectic approach sits comfortably with our data in which both young people and Baby Boomers reflect on the difficulties that young people currently face in the context of social change.

The concept of generation, according to Mannheim (1952), can be divided into three interlinked premises. First, a generation is a location within the historical process, defined by time and space; a generation requires that people share similar structural and institu- tional experiences at equivalent points in

212 Urban Studies 56(1)

their life-course, especially when they are young. Second, a generation is an actuality in which the sharing of social conditions can result in the sharing of a similar worldview, ultimately leading to political action or revo- lution. Third, within an actuality are genera- tional units: subdivisions of a generation that are stratified by a number of structures including class, gender and ethnicity. In this way, Mannheim (1952) was attentive to het- erogeneities within a generation, as well as inter-generational differences.

In the years since his work was published, there has been debate among demographers and sociologists over the terminology used by Mannheim (1952), with some arguing that his theory concerns cohorts rather than generations (Pilcher, 1994). However, Woodman and Wyn (2015), among others, have attempted to clarify the distinction between a social generation and a cohort, with the former denoting a group of people who share fundamental social conditions during their youth and the latter being an aggregate of people who experience the same specific life events at the same time (e.g. leaving school in the same year). From this perspective, a cohort is more narrowly con- ceived and connected to Mannheim’s first premise of a generational location which is objective and quantifiable. Thus, ‘social gen- eration’ is a wider and more holistic term incorporating the dialectic of how historical structures are subjectively experienced, which, in turn, influences people’s day-to- day lives and social change (Burnett, 2010).

Building on this understanding of a social generation, and pertinent for under- standing how people perceive and feel about inter-generational inequalities, there have been subsequent attempts to amalgamate Mannheim’s (1952) theory with Bourdieu’s (1984) concept of habitus. Notably, Eyerman and Turner (1998), echoing Bourdieu (1993), argued that generational cultures become embodied in people’s dispositions and

postures and these are both historically located and inter-generationally transmitted. More recently, Woodman and Wyn (2015) extended the idea of a so-called ‘generational habitus’ by connecting it to the seemingly incompatible ‘risk society’ thesis (Beck, 1992). These youth researchers were inter- ested in Beck’s (1992) understanding of individualisation – the argument that the ostensible weakening of social structures has created an obligation for young people to choose between different lifestyles and identi- ties. The individualisation thesis has been widely criticised for over-emphasising agency (for example, see Smart and Shipman, 2004) but pertinent to the current paper is Woodman and Wyn’s (2015) argument that if a young person’s habitus is shaped by his/her parents, and the speed of social change is such that the structural conditions which contextualise the parents’ and child’s upbringings are significantly different, this can lead to the child developing a ‘cleft habi- tus’ whereby their subjective worldviews are inconsistent with their material conditions. As will be seen, our data support this con- cept, lending insight into the plight of many Millennials whose expectations of wealth and security are incompatible with current social conditions.

The Baby Boomers versus the Millennials

These collective ideas of Mannheim (1952), Bourdieu (1984, 1993) and Woodman and Wyn (2015) provide the theoretical frame- work for analysing how two social genera- tions intersubjectively relate to current structural conditions. The two generations in question are the so-called ‘Baby Boomers’ and ‘Millennials’. We use these labels to loosely refer to those born in 1945–1965 (Willetts, 2010) and 1982–2000 (Howe and Strauss, 2000), respectively; although with the caveat that the boundaries around these

Hoolachan and McKee 213

dates are not precise. In discussing inter- generational conflict, Willetts (2010) argued that, in the UK, the Baby Boomers are the most powerful generation of the last century because of their large population size and the strong post-war welfare state, which con- textualised their upbringing and provided an important safety net. Despite there being two waves of Baby Boomers (Willetts, 2010), with the first-wave experiencing post-war austerity measures (Kynaston, 2007), the his- torical location of the Baby Boomers was generally characterised by a thriving labour market, a rise in education levels, a generous social security system, and the mass building of affordable council houses in the 1950s and 1960s (Kynaston, 2009). This social sta- bility resulted in economic growth, and those enjoying their rising affluence expressed this through greater consumerism (Gilleard and Higgs, 2007). Arguably, the economic strength of the young Baby Boomers meant that policies and political attitudes were shaped to their advantage (Willetts, 2010).

Fast-forward to the Millennial generation, whose historical location has been contextua- lised by globalisation and neoliberal struc- tural changes to the welfare state, labour market and housing market. The Millennials have grown up in a time of privatisation, the erosion of public services and increasing eco- nomic inequalities. More recently, these have been connected to a weakened youth labour market and insecure contract conditions. Yet, some have also pointed to the benefits enjoyed by the Millennials including rising higher education engagement and the digital revolution (Howe and Strauss, 2000). Such authors construct Millennials as a group of young people with the cultural intelligence, drive and resources to produce innovative and positive social change. Yet in 2018, it would appear that such potential has been, at least partially, overshadowed by the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis and the ramping up of neoliberal politics.

The current challenges facing the Millennials are therefore numerous but, as mentioned, our data were concerned with housing. Pertinent for this paper is evidence that not only highlights the role of housing in contributing to inter-generational inequal- ities, but also the perseverance of a desire for homeownership. As discussed, Baby Boomers benefited from the growth in social housing during the post-war period, which was intended for working-class households, while homeownership became normalised among the middle-class who profited from tax relief on mortgages – a policy that was officially abolished in 2000, negatively affecting Millennials seeking to become homeowners (Howker and Malik, 2010). During the Thatcher years, homeownership expanded through the introduction of Right-to-Buy: a policy enabling social hous- ing tenants to purchase their homes at a dis- counted rate, which, while opening up homeownership to less affluent households, resulted in a substantial reduction in social housing stock (Forrest and Murie, 1988). In summing up the normalisation of home- ownership among Baby Boomers, Crawford and McKee (2018: 188) asserted that for many people ‘[.] getting a mortgage has, since around the 1960s, tended to be the ‘‘natural’’ thing to do’.

In contrast to this period of normalisa- tion, recent attention has turned to the rise of young people living in the private rented sector (PRS); a phenomenon referred to as ‘Generation Rent’ (McKee, 2012; McKee at al., 2017b). This has been attributed to the combined effect of the barriers that today’s young people face in saving for a deposit and gaining a mortgage (Kemp, 2015); the residualisation of the social rented sector (Kintrea, 2006); and financial prod- ucts which encourage landlordism (Soaita et al., 2017). Importantly, evidence concern- ing ‘Generation Rent’ has found a persisting preference for homeownership among those

214 Urban Studies 56(1)

who are living in the PRS (Hoolachan et al., 2017). It could be argued that homeowner- ship normalisation became a feature of the Baby Boomers’ generational habitus in that the political favouring of the tenure, with its accompanying policies, led to a subjective internalisation of this norm. If the collective habitus of one generation can be inter- generationally transmitted (Woodman and Wyn, 2015), it would explain the persever- ance of this aspiration among the Millennials, despite the numerous challenges today’s young people face in becoming a homeowner. Of course, we recognise that this is a generalisation as a generation does not represent a homogenous group (Mannheim, 1952) and not everyone wishes to be a homeowner. We and others have written about these intra-generational nuan- ces extensively elsewhere (see, for example, Crawford and McKee, 2018).

Overall, Millennials looking to leave the parental home are facing substantially greater challenges than their Baby Boomer parents did at their age. Housing challenges are closely tied to the weakened youth labour market, which is now characterised by low-paid, casual contracts (Hardgrove et al., 2015). For these reasons, commenta- tors such as Willetts (2010) have argued that the Baby Boomers have ‘taken their chil- dren’s future’. While Willetts and others cer- tainly describe the structural conditions that have underpinned the Baby Boomers’ rela- tive wealth, we argue for a more nuanced perspective that does not lay blame on the agency of Baby Boomers but which explores how people from both generations relate to the changing social conditions. Young peo- ple’s experiences can be understood as a consequence of having a cleft generational habitus which is the result of a mismatch between the Baby Boomers instilling a par- ticular worldview conducive to stable and fruitful housing and employment, and the

reality of social change. With this argument in mind, we now turn to the empirical research underpinning this paper.

The research

We draw on qualitative data from two large- scale studies which investigated the housing experiences of people living in different parts of the UK. In this paper, we use data from 62 young people aged 18–35 years drawn from Study 1 to represent the Millennial voices and from 49 adults aged 45 + years from Study 2 to provide the Baby Boomer perspective.

Study 1

The Millennial voices are drawn from a study titled Mind the (Housing) Wealth Gap, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. This mixed-methods research concerned housing, wealth and inter-generational justice. In this paper, we use a subset of the data from one work-stream which collected qualitative data from 62 young people regarding their hous- ing experiences. All participants were recruited from eight UK case study areas, six of which were urban (Sheffield, Surrey, Edinburgh, North Lanarkshire, Belfast and Merthyr Tydfil) and two rural (Cornwall and Scottish Borders). Young people were recruited using a variety of methods includ- ing the display of flyers in their local areas, contact with ‘gatekeeper’ organisations such as housing providers, and advertising the project website through Facebook and Twitter. Snowball sampling was then used for further participant recruitment.

Qualitative data were collected between April 2013 and October 2014 with the par- ticipants being given the option to engage in a semi-structured telephone interview (n = 31) or a synchronous online focus group (n = 31).

Hoolachan and McKee 215

Study 2

The Baby Boomer voices in this paper have been drawn from a second qualitative study titled The Housing Aspirations of the People of Scotland funded by the Scottish Government. The purpose of this research was to provide policymakers and practi- tioners with a nuanced understanding of people’s housing aspirations. Qualitative data were collected from 80 people of vary- ing ages living in Scotland. The study adopted a two-pronged approach to recruit- ment with 35 of these participants recruited from five Scottish local authority case stud- ies (Aberdeen City, Argyll and Bute, Perth and Kinross, Renfrewshire, and the Scottish Borders), and 45 from across Scotland through a mix of targeted invitation letters, social media advertising and use of gatekeepers.

Data for this study were collected in February–June 2015 with the participants being given the option to engage in semi- structured interviews either by telephone (n = 68) or face-to-face (n = 5). In addi- tion, two focus groups were held with a total of seven people. The participants in this

study were from all age groups but for the purposes of this article we have only drawn on data from the 49 adults who were aged 45 + years in order to capture the voices of the Baby Boomers.

Combining data from two studies

Table 1 contains demographic details for the participants in both studies. As can be seen, the overall picture of the housing tenure sta- tus of the Millennials and Baby Boomers is broadly consistent with existing literature. The majority of Millennials were either liv- ing in the PRS or with their parents/rela- tives, although it is important to note that a number were homeowners either with a mortgage or in shared ownership. None of the Millennials owned their home outright and only three were living in social housing. In contrast, the majority of Baby Boomers were homeowners, with approximately half of the 49 participants owning their property outright. A minority were living in the PRS or with parents/relatives while the number living in social rented housing was nearly three times that of the Millennials.

Table 1. Participant details at the time of data collection.

Study 1 (Millennials) Study 2 (Baby Boomers)

Count Count

Gender Female 50 31 Male 12 18

Age (years) 18–26 25 – 27–35 37 – 45–54 – 14 55–64 – 11 65 + – 24

Housing tenure status Homeownership (owned outright) 0 24 Homeownership (mortgage) 15 7 Shared ownership 2 0 Private rented sector 28 5 Social rented sector 3 11 Living with parents/relatives 13 2 Homeless 1 0

216 Urban Studies 56(1)

Linking data from two separate studies for the purposes of this paper was not with- out challenge. First, neither study set out to deliberately explore the social generation categories of Millennials and Baby Boomers; rather, as mentioned, Study 1 concerned ‘young people’ up to the age of 35, while Study 2 included individuals from across the entire adult age range. This meant that there were Millennials in Study 2 who were not included in the sample for this paper. The decision to omit these individuals was based on the fact that, unlike Study 1, participants in Study 2 were not asked to comment upon inter-generational differences and, therefore, the data from these Millennials did not speak to this topic. Interestingly, however, the Baby Boomers in Study 2 did raise the topic of inter-generational differences without explicit prompting, which is one of the rea- sons behind further analysis of these data.

In addition, because of the need to impose secondary categories on the participants in both studies (i.e. Millennials and Baby Boomers) for the purposes of this paper, it can be seen in Table 1 that there is a group whose voices are not represented, those aged 36–44 years old. These individuals belong to so-called Generation X – a generation that was once subjected to media characterisa- tions of being lazy and materialistic in com- parison with the hard-working Baby Boomers (Heiman, 2001). Yet, despite the nuances of this particular inter-generational conversation, it is the alleged ‘generational war’ between the Baby Boomers and Millennials that captures the current public’s imagination (Bessant et al., 2017: 34); hence our decision to focus on these two groups.

One further challenge to note is that the contextual differences, with regards to hous- ing policy, are notable between the different nations of the UK. Study 1 recruited young people from across the UK whereas Study 2 focused exclusively on Scotland, which has devolved housing powers. Rather than

geographical distinctions between nations, we have noted elsewhere that there were interesting urban/rural nuances that emerged from both studies (McKee et al., 2015, 2017a). To reiterate these arguments here is beyond the scope of the paper but it is worth noting that the themes that will be discussed shortly did not appear to differ according to nation state.

Analysis

In both studies, the data were coded themati- cally, informed by Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) (Charmaz, 2014). This approach has developed from Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) Grounded Theory analysis, which involves a system of line-by-line cod- ing in a bottom-up manner with the aim of generating theory based on empirical evi- dence. However, CGT differs from the more positivist epistemology of Glaser and Strauss in that it does not view theory as being ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. Instead, CGT is based on a relativist epistemology which understands theory as being con- structed by the researcher based on his/her experiences and interactions with the partici- pants and data.

NVivo 10 was used to assist in the sorting and coding of data. Once the data in each study were analysed separately, codes per- taining to inter- and intra-generational inequalities were extracted and cross- referenced to search for commonalities and discrepancies. There were many consisten- cies between the two participant groups as both the Millennials and Baby Boomers felt that the younger generation face many more housing-related challenges.

Findings

Socio-historical location of the Millennials

As discussed, Mannheim (1952) contended that a generation not only requires that

Hoolachan and McKee 217

people are born in the same time period, they also need to have experienced similar social conditions and institutions during their youth. On a relational level, this appeared to be the case among the Millennials in our research, whose discus- sions of housing and employment were marked by a common experience of insecur- ity and financial struggle. Several young people pointed to challenges in the labour market which they perceived as hindering their opportunities to establish a career and, in turn, their ability to achieve their housing goals. This underlines the importance of not considering housing experiences in isolation, but rather as entangled within broader social-economic processes:

[I]n the past, university meant getting a good job and good career and good wage and an opportunity to move out and buy a nice house, it doesn’t mean that anymore, it just means we are left with all this debt and we’ve got nowhere to live. (Jessica, 24, Shared ownership)

When asked about inter-generational differ- ences, another young person argued that the largest difference is the job market:

For my parents’ generation it was quite easy, to just leave school and get a job and work your way up a ladder within a business [.] whereas I really feel like now even if you have a degree, to get any job is quite hard [.] So a lot of people I know finish their degree and have to go on benefits while they try and find a job. (Emily, 24, Private renter)

For these young people, the value of gaining a university degree had eroded as it has become much harder to gain a job that is reflective of their educational status. Adding to this frustration, many now leave univer- sity with substantial amounts of student debt and some questioned whether it was worth it. As well as struggling to earn a sufficient

income to meet housing costs, some also dis- cussed property prices, which, relative to income, were perceived as being much higher now than when their parents bought their first house:

We cannot afford to live in a decent sized fam- ily home despite both being well educated and with a reasonable income. My parents were able to bring us up in a lovely family home with a mortgage based on one teacher’s salary. It was three roads down from where we live now. (Paige, 31, Homeowner)

Notably, all of the young people were highly aware of the structural conditions which contextualised their struggles. They pointed to credential inflation and student debt when discussing university degrees, a precarious labour market and unaffordable property prices, all of which are markers that distin- guish the Millennials from the Baby Boomers (Bessant et al., 2017). Furthermore, our data support the notion of Millennials having a ‘cleft habitus’ (Woodman and Wyn, 2015) in that the young people were facing a contra- diction between their socialised attitudes and practices – arguably inherited from the previ- ous generation – which predisposed them to expectations of a well-paid, stable job and a ‘lovely family home’, and the reality of the structural limitations resulting from relatively rapid social change.

The Baby Boomers in our research expressed similar concerns:

I just feel so sorry for people today. I mean I

was lucky, really lucky. It’s just impossible, certainly not to get the housing you would really like [.] I mean if you take my day, my day I could have got a job anywhere, but now . (Patrick, 65 + , Homeowner)

My husband and I have always had good jobs and we have always been able to afford the mortgages that we have had to pay to get a flat. [If] we were the same age now and we

218 Urban Studies 56(1)

were looking to buy our flat, we wouldn’t be able to afford it, which is a damning indict- ment. (Liz, 45–54, Homeowner)

Not only did these older adults have an awareness of the challenges that young peo- ple face and how these differ from their own socio-historical location, they considered themselves to be comparably ‘lucky’. Such ‘luck’ can be understood as illustrative of an awareness of their own generational habitus having more consistency with the structural conditions at the time when they were start- ing out in the labour and housing markets, as well as a recognition that times have chan- ged. Notably, in contrast to narratives of conflict (Willetts, 2010), both groups per- ceived the structural conditions to have cre- ated these inter-generational differences and not the greed or individualised actions of the Baby Boomers. Indeed, as the next section shows, there was much support and solidar- ity across generations.

Parental support and intra-generational inequalities

In contrast to voicing resentment towards the Baby Boomers for ‘stealing their future’ (Willetts, 2010) some young people reflected on their own ‘luck’. Unlike the Baby Boomers, however, their self-perceived luck was due to the parental support that many received and there were frequent expressions of appreciation towards their parents for providing them with financial assistance for living costs. Consistent with existing litera- ture (Druta and Ronald, 2017; Lewis and West, 2017), numerous examples of parental support were provided by our young partici- pants, ranging from monetary gifts and loans to assist with mortgage and rent deposits, to non-financial support in the form of parents allowing their adult-children to remain living in the family home so they could save for the future. Such discussions of parental support resulted in statements

that demonstrate the interwoven nature of inter- and intra-generational differences:

I know that I’m lucky [.] There are a lot of people in my situation who don’t have family support because their families aren’t able to provide it financially. (Audrey, 28, Private renter)

Inter-generational differences were visible here in that the young people, who were struggling to become financially indepen- dent, benefited from the wealth of their Baby Boomer parents. However, they were also humbled by their social positions as they recognised that not all families can afford to provide the kinds of assistance that their own parents had. Thus, they also compared themselves intra-generationally in order to gain a wider perspective of their own circum- stances. Using Mannheim’s (1952) terminol- ogy, the precarious effects of the Millennials’ socio-historical location were mediated by generational unit. For some, the socioeco- nomic position of their parents acted as a buffer against economic and housing inse- curity. Indeed, some of the Baby Boomers explained that they had already provided financial assistance to their own children or that they would be willing to do so if they were in that position:

If I had a young family I would like to think that if I had enough money, then I would cer-

tainly part with some of it. (Betty, 65 + , Homeowner)

Moving even further away from narratives of inter-generational conflict, not only did the Millennials express gratitude towards their parents, some also explicitly stated that it was unfair of them to rely upon their par- ents’ wealth:

It’s like I said, my family members have offered to lend us money and things like that but I’d want them to enjoy their money that

Hoolachan and McKee 219

they’ve worked hard for in their life, that’s their money for their security. (Naomi, 26, Private renter)

Several messages can be taken from this extract. First, it highlights the importance of emotions that underpin family relationships. Although inter-generational inequalities are not only about the relationships between parents and children (or other familial permu- tations), inevitably our participants spoke about these relationships, as family members were their main point of reference when reflecting on these issues. Furthermore, sensa- tionalist headlines and texts typically invoke these personal relationships when espousing the conflict narrative. Willetts (2010), for example, claims that the Baby Boomers are ‘spending their kids’ inheritance’, yet our data indicate that this objectivist view neglects to account for the emotional connections between parents and children (Moore et al., 2015). Specifically, this perspective fails to acknowledge that many adult-children do not feel entitled to their parents’ wealth and do not view it as their future inheritance. Instead, many in the younger generation want their parents to grow old comfortably, thus empha- sising the affection underpinning these relationships.

Second, Naomi’s contention that her par- ents have worked hard to earn their wealth indicates an internalised attitude embedded in neoliberal individualism and morality. A defining feature of neoliberalism has been the downward devolution of autonomy and responsibility for life-outcomes from the state to active citizens, undermining post- war collectivism (McKee, 2012). Naomi’s emphasis on her parents’ agency suggests a belief that people who ‘work hard’ deserve to reap the rewards of this work without feel- ing obliged to share their wealth, even with their own children. Given that several other young people expressed similar sentiments, we suggest that such individualism may be a

feature of their generational habitus, at least for some Millennial subgroups. This shift towards greater individualisation is evident in further statements from the young people about wanting to be independent and make it on their own:

[My parents] were able to buy a house, they could afford it, they could gradually work their way up the housing ladder and I don’t think they needed to rely on their parents at all. (Katie, 26, Private renter)

Katie’s statement reflects another direct inter-generational comparison in that she held the view that if her parents could buy a house without any parental support, then so could she. Despite both Katie and Naomi showing an awareness of the structural dif- ferences between their generation and that of their parents in other parts of their inter- views, here they both emphasised individual agency without regard to today’s challenging structural conditions. The belief that hard work would be sufficient to increase their wealth appeared to be strongly internalised among many of the young participants. It has also been a strong theme within recent UK policy and political narratives – as reflected in debates about ‘hard-working families’, and ‘welfare scroungers’. We argue that this attitude is a key feature of young people’s generational habitus and is indica- tive of what Woodman and Wyn (2015) refer to as the failure of the neoliberal promise – that the ingrained belief that ‘hard work will pay off’, encouraged by a neoliberal regime, falls short in the current climate of financial precarity and instability that characterise the labour and housing markets. Hence the value in theorising young people’s generational habitus as one which is cleft.

The political villains

According to Howker and Malik (2010: 2) people look for ‘heroes and villains’ when

220 Urban Studies 56(1)

constructing narratives to explain a difficult situation so that there is someone to blame. As we have argued, accounts of inter- generational conflict suggest that for Millennials, the ‘villains’ are their Baby Boomer parents. This may be the case objec- tively in that the Baby Boomers did benefit from more stable employment and housing opportunities than many Millennials cur- rently do, and their actions have in many ways led to the precarious conditions experi- enced by the younger generation (Howker and Malik, 2010; Willetts, 2010). However, from a relational perspective, young people do not attribute their struggles to the older generation. Not only was there no evidence of vilifying their parents, many young peo- ple were explicitly uncomfortable with the prospect of their parents providing them with large sums of money to assist with liv- ing costs. They did not feel entitled to their parents’ wealth despite arguments that they are owed something from the older genera- tion (Willetts, 2010). Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the actions of the Baby Boomers were shaped and encouraged by the socio-political climate of the post-war period and beyond, meaning that this gener- ation were not exercising uninhibited agency. The young people in our research recognised this and easily identified an alter- native villain – the government.

The young people in Study 1 were asked how they felt towards the government and there was a resounding belief that the gov- ernment does not represent, or indeed under- stand, the interests of young people:

Whether they really understand the problems that [we] face or are actually keen on helping [us], I’m not sure. They’re probably quite far removed from the issue and so understanding the problem it’s a bit of an intellectual exercise for them rather than really emotionally under- standing. (Tom, 35, Homeowner)

Here, Tom reflected on the social distance between politicians and young people, sug- gesting that any attempt to understand young people was based on objective ‘facts’ rather than empathy. This notion that politi- cians are out of touch with young people was further reiterated:

They’re coming up with schemes that aren’t that helpful because they are so far removed from it. (Audrey, 28, Private renter)

The ‘schemes’ referred to by Audrey related to recent policies created by David Cameron’s Coalition government (who were in power at the time of the interviews), such as the Help-to-Buy scheme,

1 which aims to

help first-time buyers – typically young peo- ple – to access the housing market. Help-to- Buy was promoted as making homes more ‘affordable’ for first-time buyers but the young people in our research did not agree, arguing the pricing of these properties was still out of their reach and also presumed stable, secure employment, which was often elusive:

They are building a lot of houses around here, but they’re still not that cheap [.] They’re still in the hundreds of thousands [of pounds]. (Victoria, 32, Private renter)

In addition to being out of touch with young people and creating unhelpful policies, some Millennials argued that politicians are self- centred and are only interested in gaining votes, as opposed to being genuinely con- cerned about the difficult plight many young people are facing:

They will do what gets the most votes. And in terms of voting power, young people seem to be turned off politics! And the people that vote are homeowners, Baby Boomers, factually that’s how it is. So, that’s who they’re going to appeal to, isn’t it? (Chris, 29, Homeowner)

Hoolachan and McKee 221

In this last extract, Chris succinctly summed up the argument that Baby Boomers are the most powerful generation of the last cen- tury; they are a large cohort of affluent vot- ers and so policies are shaped towards their interests (Willetts, 2010). Young people, therefore, appear to be in a catch-22 situa- tion – they feel underrepresented by govern- ments who devise superficial policies for ‘PR’ purposes (as another young person argued) and so they are deterred from vot- ing. In many cases, they face highly insecure circumstances regarding employment and housing, yet they appear to have an indivi- dualised generational habitus based on the belief that hard work and individual action will lead to financial wealth. This attitude and their mistrust in politicians come together to create a group of young people struggling to ‘make it on their own’, who are politically aware but who feel politically detached and disenfranchised.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper has challenged the narrative of inter-generational conflict purported by some commentators. Today’s youth – the Millennials – face more barriers to acquiring stable, well-paid employment and secure, affordable housing in comparison with their Baby Boomer parents. These inter- generational inequalities should not be underestimated and the work of authors such as Willetts (2010), Howker and Malik (2010) and Bessant et al. (2017) is crucial for placing the spotlight on the tangible effects of these inequalities and the financial strug- gles that many are faced with. Yet, narra- tives of inter-generational conflict are misleading as they place the blame for the struggles of young people at the feet of their Baby Boomer (grand)parents. The evidence presented in this paper, however, has demon- strated that, on a subjective level, young peo- ple do not feel negatively towards their

parents or the older generation as a whole. Similarly, in contrast to images of greedy vil- lains, the Baby Boomers in this paper expressed sympathy for the difficult circum- stances that the Millennials are currently navigating. Moreover, while the young peo- ple in this paper expressed awareness of inter-generational inequalities, they likewise reflected on intra-generational differences and many felt humbled by their compara- tively privileged positions through recogni- tion that not all young people have parental support which can facilitate a move into homeownership. Our data, therefore, also underscore the pivotal role of housing in understanding contemporary patterns of inequality.

As well as being misleading, conflict nar- ratives that emphasise the agency of the Baby Boomers also conceal the structural and political underpinnings of inter- generational inequalities. Blaming the Baby Boomers diverts attention away from scruti- nising governments and neoliberal agendas which have led to the various policies and structural changes that have influenced the actions of the Baby Boomers, and created the precarious conditions experienced by the Millennials. Moreover, whether deliberate or not, constructing a narrative of conflict based on objective evidence alone fails to give voice to those people – both Millennials and Baby Boomers – at the centre of this alleged conflict. If one takes the position that the Millennials are politically weak in that they are less likely to have policies tar- geted at their needs, constructing an argu- ment of inter-generational conflict without involving the views of young people adds to their political exclusion. Likewise, portray- ing Baby Boomers as selfish and greedy, without gaining the perspectives of these individuals, unfairly demonises a group of people who most likely believed that they were acting in the best interests of their fam- ilies, including their children. In other

222 Urban Studies 56(1)

words, blaming the Baby Boomers for Millennial precarity reinforces the neoliberal agenda of emphasising individual responsi- bility, while downplaying the damaging effects of policies such as the Right-to-Buy scheme or the post-2008 austerity measures.

As well as challenging the conflict narra- tive, our findings support and develop the argument that young people are currently experiencing a ‘cleft’ generational habitus (see also, Woodman and Wyn, 2015). The work of Mannheim (1952), which has not been prevalent in the housing and urban studies literature to date, lends valuable insights into understanding contemporary housing inequalities. Several of our partici- pants in Study 1 demonstrated this through claims that their expectations for gaining sta- ble, well-paid employment and being able to afford to buy a house were at odds with the reality of their experiences. These claims were interwoven with comparisons with the previous Baby Boomer generation, who were perceived to have had more guarantees in achieving these goals. Likewise, Baby Boomers also recognised the structural bar- riers that preclude many young people from experiencing the type of stability that they had done when they were a similar age. Together, these findings further suggest that the Millennials inherited their labour and housing market expectations from the older generation. We argue, just as Bessant et al. (2017) have done, that a relational approach is a more rounded way of attempting to con- ceptualise the current experiences of the Millennials in comparison with solely focus- ing on structural inequalities from a top- down perspective or from focusing on agency as conflict narratives have done. Exploring inter-generational inequalities from an inter- subjective, relational perspective not only brings attention to structural inequalities, it also enables an understanding of how people (from different generations) react and inter- act with changing market conditions. The

concept of a cleft generational habitus, we argue, captures the disharmony that many Millennials currently experience which sits within this relational approach. An interest- ing implication, and future line of enquiry, is the question of whether the Millennials’ cleft habitus will begin to shift their own expecta- tions of labour and housing markets, as well as those of the next generation.

Finally, while the arguments in this paper are embedded within the UK context, the notion of generation transcends geographical boundaries and therefore is internationally relevant. Indeed, we argue that a great strength of Mannheim (1952) and Woodman and Wyn’s (2015) work is that it can be tai- lored to account for different family struc- tures and social conditions given that the boundaries of a generation are not as fixed as those of cohorts. Such flexibility enables com- parisons between and within different groups of people, in different parts of the world, which can shed light on similarities and var- iances, and, crucially, can reveal inequalities. It is therefore a valuable theoretical approach for better understanding the nuances of con- temporary inter-generational inequalities.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jennifer Hoolachan https://orcid.org/0000- 0002-1957-5774

Note

1. For further explanation of the Help-to-Buy scheme, see McKee et al., 2017c.

Hoolachan and McKee 223

References

Arundel R (2017) Equity inequity: Housing

wealth inequality, inter and intra-generational

divergences, and the rise of private landlord-

ism. Housing, Theory and Society 34(2):

176–200. Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Mod-

ernity. Translated from German by M Ritter.

London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Berry C and Freeland R (2011) Book reviews.

Journal of Social Policy 40(4): 853–874. Bessant J, Farthing R and Watts R (2017) The

Precarious Generation: A Political Economy of

Young People. London: Routledge. Boult A (2016) Millennials’ ‘fury’ over baby

boomers’ vote for Brexit. The Telegraph, 24

June. Available at: http://www.telegraph.

co.uk/news/2016/06/24/millennials-fury-over-

baby-boomers-vote-for-brexit/ (accessed 30

June 2016). Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique

of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge

and Keegan Paul. Bourdieu P (1993) Sociology in Question. London:

SAGE Publications Ltd. Burnett J (2010) Generations: The Time Machine

in Theory and Practice. Farnham: Ashgate. Charmaz K (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory.

London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cigdem M and Whelan S (2017) Intergenerational

transfers and housing tenure – Australian evi-

dence. International Journal of Housing Policy

17(2): 227–248. Cosslett RL (2016) Family rifts over Brexit: ‘I can

barely look at my parents’. The Guardian, 27

June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.

com/lifeandstyle/2016/jun/27/brexit-family-

rifts-parents-referendum-conflict-betrayal

(accessed 30 June 2016). Coulter R and Scott J (2015) What motivates resi-

dential mobility? Re-examining self-reported rea-

sons for desiring and making residential moves.

Population, Space and Place 21(4): 354–371. Crawford J and McKee K (2018) Hysteresis:

Understanding the housing aspirations gap.

Sociology 52(1): 182–197. Druta O and Ronald R (2017) Young adults’

pathways into homeownership and the nego-

tiation of intra-family support: A home, the

ideal gift. Sociology 51(4): 783–799.

Eyerman R and Turner BS (1998) Outline of a

theory of generations. European Journal of

Social Theory 1(1): 91–106.

Forrest R and Murie A (1988) Selling the Welfare

State: The Privatisation of Public Housing.

London: Routledge. Gilleard C and Higgs P (2007) The third age and

the Baby Boomers. International Journal of

Ageing and Later Life 2(2): 13–30. Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of

Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative

Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing. Hardgrove A, McDowell L and Rootham E

(2015) Precarious lives, precarious labour:

Family support and young men’s transitions

to work in the UK. Journal of Youth Studies

18(8): 1057–1076. Heath S and Calvert E (2013) Gifts, loans and

inter-generational support for young adults.

Sociology 47(6): 1120–1135. Heiman R (2001) The ironic contradictions in the

discourse on Generation X or how ‘slackers’

are saving capitalism. Childhood 8(2): 275–293. Higgs P and Gilleard C (2010) Generational con-

flict, consumption and the ageing welfare state

in the United Kingdom. Ageing and Society

30(8): 1439–1451. Hirayama Y and Ronald R (2008) Baby-boomers,

baby-busters and the lost generation: Genera-

tional fractures in Japan’s homeowner society.

Urban Policy and Research 26(3): 325–342. Hoolachan J, McKee K, Moore T, et al. (2017)

‘Generation Rent’ and the ability to ‘settle

down’: Economic and geographical variation

in young people’s housing transitions. Journal

of Youth Studies 20(1): 63–78. Howe N and Strauss W (2000) Millennials Rising:

The Next Great Generation. New York: Vin-

tage Books. Howker E and Malik S (2010) Jilted Generation:

How Britain Bankrupted its Youth. London:

Icon Books. Hurley K, Breheny M and Tuffin K (2017) Inter-

generational inequity arguments and the impli-

cations for state-funded financial support of

older people. Ageing and Society 37(3): 561–580.

Kemp PA (2015) Private renting after the global

financial crisis. Housing Studies 30(4): 601–620. Kintrea K (2006) Having it all? Housing reform

under devolution. Housing Studies 21(2): 187–207.

224 Urban Studies 56(1)

Kynaston D (2007) Austerity Britain 1945–51. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kynaston D (2009) Family Britain 1951–57. Lon- don: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Lewis J and West A (2017) Intergenerational rela- tions between English students, graduates liv- ing at home, and their parents. Social Policy and Administration 51(7): 1248–1266.

McKee K (2012) Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing Studies 27(6): 853–862.

McKee K, Hoolachan J and Moore T (2017a)

The precarity of young people’s housing experiences in a rural context. Scottish Geo- graphical Journal 133(2): 115–129.

McKee K, Moore T and Crawford J (2015) Understanding the Housing Aspirations of People

in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. McKee K, Moore T, Soaita AM, et al. (2017b)

‘Generation Rent’ and the fallacy of choice. International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research 41(2): 318–333. McKee K, Muir J and Moore T (2017c) Housing

policy in the UK: The importance of spatial nuance. Housing Studies 32(1): 62–70.

Mannheim K (1952) Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

Moore P (2016) How Britain Voted. Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how- britain-voted/ (accessed 30 June 2016).

Moore T, McKee K and Soaita A (2015) The pur- suit of homeownership and the importance of

family support. Paper presented at Housing

Studies Association conference, University of York, April 2015. (Full text not currently available online.)

Piachaud D, Macnicol J and Lewis J (2009) Just Ageing? Fairness, Equality and the Life Course:

A Think Piece on Intergenerational Equality. London: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Pilcher J (1994) Mannheim’s sociology of genera- tions: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology 45(3): 481–495.

Smart C and Shipman B (2004) Visions in mono-

chrome: Families, marriage and the individu- alization thesis. British Journal of Sociology 55(4): 491–509.

Soaita A, Searle B, McKee K, et al. (2017) Becoming a landlord: Strategies of property- based welfare in the private rental sector in Great Britain. Housing Studies 32(5): 613–637.

Stone J, Berrington A and Falkingham J (2014) Gender, turning points, and boomerangs: Returning home in young adulthood in Great Britain. Demography 51(1): 257–276.

Threadgold S and Nilan P (2009) Reflexivity of contemporary youth, risk and cultural capital. Current Sociology 57(1): 47–68.

Willetts D (2010) The Pinch: How the Baby Boom- ers Took Their Children’s Future – And Why

They Should Give it Back. London: Atlantic Books.

Woodman D and Wyn J (2015) Youth and Gener- ation: Rethinking Change and Inequality in the

Lives of Young People. London: SAGE Publi- cations Ltd.

Hoolachan and McKee 225