How the baby boomers have stuffed the younger generation

LilacPixie

Blobby8 wrote: »

Yes 1981 for us too, second hand everything, portable TV, no central heating, no car, no holidays, 12 hour shifts, we had it all did'nt we ?

Bfore I was born but I can remember going to spain in 1986 for a fortnight and it was the height of sophistication. In 1990 2 adults 2 kids majorca half board was £1649 in total, I wonder if the hotel still exists,, I should price it for today. My dad drove an Austin Princess and it had cruise control (but was brown) and they got rid of the coal fireplace and replaced it with gas central heating an my grandad was not impressed as he liked warming his bum against the open fire and swore the new heating would never catch on :rotfl:Oh and the whole VHS/Betamax thing. We had betamax. I can remember getting a commadore C64 for my christmas one year. I think it was about £120 in 1990 ish, maybe earlier as I had Daley Thompsons decathalon game and he won gold in mid 80's didn't he?.

If you compare to us we have 2 cars, both are silver, both have cruise control but its now standard on even midrange cars so nothing fantastic there. Xbox360 is in morrisons for £80 at the moment. I was taking jaunts to Ibiza at 19 with my friends, I doubt my parents did the same.

Not to mention i'm female, if i was born in 1946/7 I doubt i would of had the oportunity to attend university at 17/18, go on holiday with my friends without it being some huge drama. Also my parents installed a good savings mentality and I bought a 2 bed flat alone at 22 with a 10% deposit. I obviously benefit from lower than average property prices being up here in east scotland but would I as a single female been able to by alone in say 1968??

ILW

Jowo wrote: »

It's easy to be rose-tinted - overall, housing was definately more affordable for the previous generations, university education was free, employment more readily available and less insecure, public transport cheaper and less crowded and so forth.

I read an article from someone reminiscing about how cheap it was to be a student in the 70s - no tuition fee, decent grant, benefits during the summer vacation, etc, but then they said what the tax rate was for those in employment and though I don't recall the exact figure, it was much, much higher than today.

So taxes were higher then and benefits were much lower. The previous generations may have seemed to have it easier but then income tax receipts exceeded expenditure on benefits unlike now.

It's hardly our parents and grand-parents fault that the tax/benefit ratios have been reversed to such a degree that there are many scenarios where claimants are no better off in employment and the govt introduced tax credits and the national minimum wage which encourage part-time and low paid employment.

What you are not taking into account is that Uni students were an Elite from the top 10% of the population then. Life still is pretty good for the top 10% now.

wotsthat

The_Fox wrote: »

Wotsthat

Do you ever post anything without thinking, you simply seems to spot someone that does not post stuff that you improve of then attack everything but the subject raised.

If there are problems in society then the first step to sorting them out is raising the issue, and if a slapped wrist was all that was need ed then that would be fine by me, but until that time!!

You look at the evil discrimination in South Africa that took place, but once it was done away with many made a point of ending what had happened that day in order to move on, i feel the same way about most things.

My problem is that you start out your threads with good intentions taking about fairness and the like but just a few lines in the bile starts and, I don't feel good about it, but I find that mockery is the best approach as real debate is wasted.

In previous threads you've compared BTL owners to scum, wife-beaters, Adolf Hitler, child abusers etc. In a new twist today you've managed a comparison with the apartheid system in South Africa.

You've said before that I ain't no Frasier Crane but Foxy you really need to chillax.

julieq

Just as a point of fact, baby boomers are hardly responsible for today's house prices because they didn't pay them. Generation X were largely responsible for the last boom (but I always preferred the Clash).

And anyway it's a ridiculous division because "baby boomers" are not a heterogenous group and contain disproportionately poor people - pensioners for example. The only reason a few people were able to benefit from (for example) a free University education was precisely because very few did and it could be absorbed by general taxation. When you have 50% plus of people getting what around 10% got until quite recently, you do have to figure out ways of paying for it that may involve paying for it yourself.

And as house prices go, the fact is, prices for things in short supply go up. Live with it. You'd do better lobbying your mp for more relaxed planning laws than whinging witlessly on an internet forum about people you think may have had it better than you.

Baby boomers do seem to be the target du jour from those with entitlement issues. Very depressing.

abaxas

julieq wrote: »

Just as a point of fact, baby boomers are hardly responsible for today's house prices because they didn't pay them. Generation X were largely responsible for the last boom (but I always preferred the Clash).

And anyway it's a ridiculous division because "baby boomers" are not a heterogenous group and contain disproportionately poor people - pensioners for example. The only reason a few people were able to benefit from (for example) a free University education was precisely because very few did and it could be absorbed by general taxation. When you have 50% plus of people getting what around 10% got until quite recently, you do have to figure out ways of paying for it that may involve paying for it yourself.

And as house prices go, the fact is, prices for things in short supply go up. Live with it. You'd do better lobbying your mp for more relaxed planning laws than whinging witlessly on an internet forum about people you think may have had it better than you.

Baby boomers do seem to be the target du jour from those with entitlement issues. Very depressing.

I'll see you last comment and raise you.

Baby boomers are those with entitlement issues. Very depressing.

/me looks back to the 70s

WHITEVANMAN

Percy1983 wrote: »

It does come down to a side debate of what you class as working hard, personally I would say getting qualified in a profession and working in said profession is working harder than leaving school and doing all types of unskilled work.

To put it simply, I have to earn more than my dad (in adjusted terms) to get the same home he did, to earn more money it is generally regardard you work harder. I am earning more in adjusted terms so therefore must have worked harder.

By all means I can agree this is an opinion so you are free to disagree, but neither is right or wrong.

Your definition of working harder, is because you spent a few years extra studying over those who have chosen different life paths.
(Some people need nothing but the school of life take them forward)

That was a choice, that will eventually lead you to a point in later life where you should be much better off than your parents and those workers who followed unskilled professions.

If your were worried that you'd fallen behind, while those other lazy !!!!!!s around you have knuckled down to whatever work they have chosen to do to get them a start in family life, you have only to blame yourself, though im sure later in life when your career has brought you say,a 5 bed detached and a couple of Merc's, a holiday home etc etc (because if you worked hard enough these goals will easily be achievable, and knowing all the tax loopholes will definately help) you'll not be giving them much thought as they struggle in their 3 bed terraces.

If your eanring more in adjusted terms, quite simply you have a better paid job, thats all, you worked for that but did you really work any harder, Im sure you already enjoy many more luxuries than your parents ever did at the same time too.

Yes homes are somewhat more expensive, as are many things, welcome to the world of finite resources.

markharding557

ILW wrote: »

I think the younger generation should stop whining, get off their backsides, earn some money and buy the houses they so seem to desire. Cannot see their problem myself.

The problem is many of them can not earn enough.
Thirty years ago a manual worker could earn enough to get a modest house not so today in fact many well qualified people can not afford it today.

ukcarper

I would consider myself a typical babyboomer, like most of my friends have lived in the same house for the last 25 years and worked to pay mortgage. The house was cheaper in relation to salaries but I don’t see what I have done to cause house prices to rise in the last dozen or so years.

I didn’t go to university; in fact none of my friends went to university because like the majority of children we was branded a failure at 11 (we failed our 11+ and went to a secondary modern school). The advantage we did have which isn’t mentioned very often was that you could get an apprenticeship and good training and if you worked hard you could end up with good qualifications.

I don’t move in the same circles as a lot of people on here and only know two people who are landlords, One is a boomer but is a successful business man and bought his property cash and the other is much younger and let his house when he moved in with his girlfriend.

Linton

markharding557 wrote: »

The problem is many of them can not earn enough.
Thirty years ago a manual worker could earn enough to get a modest house not so today in fact many well qualified people can not afford it today.

Yes but the ratios of skills required years ago were different. For example 50-60 years ago anyone who worked in an office for any length of time had clearly made a success of their life and were part of an elite group many of whom could afford a house.

The majority of working people were manual workers. The richest of these, those with in-demand skills and more senior roles, may also have been able to afford a house.

Nowadays the population as a whole is far better trained then previously. Office jobs are the norm. So, I would suggest, that a junior/mid-ranking unversity educated professional has the same sort of role/position in society that previously would have been occupied by a high skilled manual worker.

Such people, perhaps not unnaturally, still expect the benefits of years ago when someone with their job would of necessity have been a member of a small elite.

Percy1983

WHITEVANMAN wrote: »

Your definition of working harder, is because you spent a few years extra studying over those who have chosen different life paths.
(Some people need nothing but the school of life take them forward)

That was a choice, that will eventually lead you to a point in later life where you should be much better off than your parents and those workers who followed unskilled professions.

If your were worried that you'd fallen behind, while those other lazy !!!!!!s around you have knuckled down to whatever work they have chosen to do to get them a start in family life, you have only to blame yourself, though im sure later in life when your career has brought you say,a 5 bed detached and a couple of Merc's, a holiday home etc etc (because if you worked hard enough these goals will easily be achievable, and knowing all the tax loopholes will definately help) you'll not be giving them much thought as they struggle in their 3 bed terraces.

If your eanring more in adjusted terms, quite simply you have a better paid job, thats all, you worked for that but did you really work any harder, Im sure you already enjoy many more luxuries than your parents ever did at the same time too.

Yes homes are somewhat more expensive, as are many things, welcome to the world of finite resources.

I do believe this is where opinions are split, I have had to get qualifications in my profession as its classed as difficult to do. To which as its more difficult to do i get paid more to do it. If something is more difficult you could say its harder to do to which my job is more taxing on the brain (pun intended) to which my brain has to work harder than somebody working in a unskilled job. Therefore it is harder work so I am working harder, yes I may not do more hours or more physical work but not anybody off the street can do it.

I don't feel we have fell behind, by all means if we went for the higher income in the early days and no qualifications we may have bought earlier, but this way we are going straight to the 3 bed semi's with a garage (I have found a 4 bed with a swimming pool in my price range). Now this isn't the young expecting too much as my expectations are inline with my income which I have work hard for, in many respects we have skipped the 2 bed terrace phase and going straight to the end game.

Anyway, my arguement (or complaint) isn't so much about my personal situation as its all going perfectly to plan for me, my arguement is having bigger TV's and cheaper travel doesn't mean we should be able to have something as basic as a home, yes I agree we need to build more but if all those with more than one property where forced down to 1 house to live in prices would drop and many less would be priced out and forced to rent of said landlord.

Houses should be homes, not investments.