How the baby boomers have stuffed the younger generation

LilacPixie

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sometimes couples make small versions of themselves to keep the population going. 2 of us so 2 children should figure out nicely, so 3 bedrooms would be perfect.

In short its planning ahead.

aaa you mean babies.. yup got a few of them too and one immenent arrival. So we have most couples 'trying' will fall pregnant within a year, 9 months pregnancy plus baby in with you for first 6 months so 27 months. then say 24 months for your partner to recover and adjust to things and go for number 2 so another 27 months. Grand total of 78 months before you would 'need' 3 bedrooms.

It would be quite easy to buy a 1 or 2 bed flat live there a few years, pay down mortgage, build up some more savings. This is a perfectly viable option for couples just starting careers but as I said 'our' generation want it all.

I find it quite ironic that some of 'our' generation complain about baby boomers living in family homes after they have served their purpose and not dowsizing or selling up for £2.60 are the same people who are trying to buy 'family' homes as DINK's on the off chance that they may have 2 in the future.

markharding557

ILW wrote: »

I believe that in the 70s, home ownership was at around 50% of the population, It is now around 70%.

I was relating to my parents who were manual workers in factories who bought a semi in 1976.
Today people with far greater skills and qualifications are unable to do what they could.
That is where the housing situation has gone wrong,not due to my parents generation(boomers in their 60's)but because of the dereliction of duty of all governments of the last 30 years because they have not managed the housing infrastructure at all.
They just left it to the four winds:(

stringsmk2

you cant soley blame a particular group of people, there are so many factors to consider.

Personally, it is globalisation that has made this mess. The baby boomers were just in a better position as globilisation took hold.

you can not blame people for taking advantage of any situation as it is part of human nature to want to suceed and have a better life.

ILW

Strrikes me that everything with the exception of houses is now cheaper (compared to wages) than it was 30 years ago. Happy to be corrected though.

ash28

Percy1983 wrote: »

I would have to disagree here, yes technology has got better, but I wouldn't say its got cheaper. The computer comparision is wrong, the BBC micro was the cutting edge, a £399 laptop is rather midrange.

Another example is how much would a 152inch 3D plasma TV cost and compare that to the first colour TVs, but then there was choice like there is now, I can stay with my 40" LCD and back then they could stay with the black and white one (in both cases we will have to wait until the one we want is more affordable).

I don't think my children shouldn't be able to buy a house just because they have better technology than I do now.

In the mid 1990s I bought an IBM desktop pc and printer - the cost was £2300 then - it wasn't top of the range or anything. That was back in the days when your login to ISP was a number - my first one was Compuserve. Those were the days.

I bought an automatic washing machine in 1982 - cost £200.

Bought a Matusui 24" tv in 1987 - about the cheapest you could get - cost £299

The matching video recorder was £399 - again the cheapest we could get.

Electronic and electrical goods are cheaper now - a lot cheaper.

Clothes are another area where things are cheaper - there was no Asda, Tesco or Primark clothes - cheap stuff came from C&As or the markets.

Why do think people rented videos and didn't buy them? In the 1980s a new film on video could cost £60 or more.

Books are cheaper - there was no Amazon or The Book People - book prices were fixed - the publishers virtually had a cartel.

Manufacturers didn't call the UK treasure island for nothing back then.

ILW

I believe food is a lot cheaper now as well, turkey was a once a year treat for many.

julieq

OK, so let's accept for a moment that "babyboomers" as a group are the cause of all the world's ills.

What remedy is being requested here? An old person tax? Shoot them and redistribute their property?

It's no easier for someone who is made unemployed at the age of around 50 to find work - prime babyboom territory - than it is for a young person. The idea that there is an invincible group of people born between 1945 and 1965 and that they have special advantages over other generations is simple fantasy.

Some things were and are better for a MINORITY of the population and there is no homogenous babyboom demographic. I'm sorry, but things have changed, and it's not the fault of one group of the UK population that life is harder, it's about mass communication, openness and the globalisation that has led to.

It is also about the fact that most of the rest of the world do a better job of education than we do, and people in education as a rule work harder and get better at what they do than our young people. I have spent a lot of time in China seeing the results at first hand, and believe me the sheer quality and work ethic of the people there is astounding - not surprising since there is a long way to fall if things go awry. On the other hand most (literally most) of the graduates I see in this country are barely literate.

So if you want a slice of the global pie, stop whinging about how all the odds are against you - believe me the children of agricultural workers in rural Chinese villages have a lot more to overcome - and how unfair it is that you can't just turn up and collect what your parents had as of right, and get on with competing with them on merit.

If you're able to.

Linton

markharding557 wrote: »

I was relating to my parents who were manual workers in factories who bought a semi in 1976.
Today people with far greater skills and qualifications are unable to do what they could.
....

As suggested earlier, many of the people with far greater skills and qualifications now may well have been manual workers had they been born 30 years earlier.

Skills and qualifications are now just an entry to the world of work, not a first class ticket.

Percy1983

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Is it the baby boomers fault that everyone has to have a degree now to clean toilets.
We all left school at 15,very few later and started at the bottom on rubbish pay.
Everyone and his wife studies for qualifications nowadays,that's why its so hard to stand out,so getting a degree basically means nothing more than the education we had,bog standard when it comes to it.
It's just you get to study longer before you start to work.

I do agree with this, but I am ahead of other people in the office with the same qualifications, due to hard work, going the extra mile.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Rented,they probably still live with mummy and daddy.

Nail on the head, if I start paying some BTL landlord mortgage I will never get my own

Blobby8 wrote: »

Not fair, his parents worked as security & checkout therefore long underpaid hours, incidentally two professions I rate much higher than bean counters.

Yet again as I say its open to debate how you define hard work, you are entitled to your opinion but pay scales across many companies in the country will back up mine.

LilacPixie wrote: »

aaa you mean babies.. yup got a few of them too and one immenent arrival. So we have most couples 'trying' will fall pregnant within a year, 9 months pregnancy plus baby in with you for first 6 months so 27 months. then say 24 months for your partner to recover and adjust to things and go for number 2 so another 27 months. Grand total of 78 months before you would 'need' 3 bedrooms.

It would be quite easy to buy a 1 or 2 bed flat live there a few years, pay down mortgage, build up some more savings. This is a perfectly viable option for couples just starting careers but as I said 'our' generation want it all.

I wouldn't completely disagree with this, but you could look at it another way, buy house, married with 2 months, some fun on the wedding night, 9 months later we have a baby... so that's 11 months, don't want ages too far apart so 15 months later have some more fun, 9 months later we have 2 babies, so thats 2 babies in 33 months.

Ok, we are not that naive to think it will happen like that, but we aren't going to wait long, the only reason we don't have children now is because we don't have a home for them.

But even if you go somewhere in the middle of the 2, why buy smaller now to save a few months saving for a deposit just to move in less than 3 years when we have worked hard so we can go straight to the home we want?

It does amuse me how the assumption is I complain and sit here doing nothing about it, yet when I turn it around and point out I have done everything about it and got myself into an excellent position people don't like that either. We have played the long game and delayed slightly now for a better long term plan, I will admit houses probing 18k on average around here when it was a 'cheap' area to start with has been a bless too.

As I say all my expectations are well in line with how hard we have worked with a bit of luck thrown in, all is good here so just try to be happy for me. :beer:

Londonsu

Percy1983 wrote: »

AT what point have boomers paid for any of my education? the apprenticeship wasn't easy to get, there was over 150 applicants and 2 places.


Through the tax system of course