Resentment of this generation

lostinrates

chazzee wrote: »

I'm 29yo. I actually believe those being born now will have it even harder, .

I think this is likely. (but they will have better tvs and phones ) .

Problems we fuss about like who'll pay for our pensions will be more of an issue still I guess, and the earth's resources have to be divided more meanly and plundered.

grizzly1911

Buyers do dictate the price as my neighbour is finding out. they will be lucky to reach 85% of peak and ours are modest, but in a good location.

My mom's neighbour achieved just 74% of a cheap sale price in Feb after 12 months.(Midlands).

I don't think stamp duty threshold help either but that's another issue.

Graham_Devon

Personally think the problem in this discussion is one side of the argument is talking about babyboomers.

The other side of the argument appears to be talking about 70-80 year olds.

Babyboomers would have been going to uni in the 50's.

Generally babyboomers didn't spend down down'pit either. Their parents would have spent more time down there.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally think the problem in this discussion is one side of the argument is talking about babyboomers.

The other side of the argument appears to be talking about 70-80 year olds.

Babyboomers would have been going to uni in the 50's.

Generally babyboomers didn't spend down down'pit either. Their parents would have spent more time down there.

Not many babyboomers would have gone to university and you are wrong lots of babyboomers went down the pits and worked in factories.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally think the problem in this discussion is one side of the argument is talking about babyboomers.

The other side of the argument appears to be talking about 70-80 year olds.

Babyboomers would have been going to uni in the 50's.

Generally babyboomers didn't spend down down'pit either. Their parents would have spent more time down there.

the earliest baby boomers could be considered to be born in 1945

unless they were very clever they wouldn't have started to go to uni until 1963 (1945 + 18 = 1963)

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Not many babyboomers would have gone to university and you are wrong lots of babyboomers went down the pits and worked in factories.

I said generally.

Didn't say none.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I said generally.

Didn't say none.

The pits and factories were going strong in the late 60s and 70s when the majority of boomers would have entered the workforce.

Graham_Devon

Heres one to argue over...

David Willetts is a rare creature. Britain does not produce many public intellectuals. To find one lurking deep in the jungle of Westminster politics is little short of an anthropological miracle. But with this book, Willetts, a frontline Conservative politician, has confirmed his status as the thinking person's MP.

The Pinch sets out to show how the baby boomers – those, like Willetts, who were born between 1945 and 1965 – have "stolen their children's future" through their cultural, demographic and political dominance. Willetts does not quite succeed in proving this charge of intergenerational theft. But in marshalling his case he takes you on such a fascinating journey through British society that you do not feel remotely shortchanged.

His stated thesis is that the big generation of boomers has concentrated wealth, adopted a hegemonic position over national culture and failed to attend to the needs of the future. They have, in effect, broken the inter-generational !contract. It is certainly true that the boomers have done well out of the welfare state, being set to take out, Willetts suggests, approximately 118% of what they'll put in. But this makes them no worse than !previous generations, including those born between 1900 and 1920.

There is also no doubt that the monomaniacal British obsession with home ownership, while far from being a new phenomenon, has so far benefited the boomers rather more than the generations on either side. At the same time, the rise in immigration since the mid-1990s has held down wages for Generations X and Y (or those born between the mid-60s and the millennium) who would otherwise be benefiting from being in a smaller cohort and therefore a tighter labour market. It is also true that the boomers haven't been proactive enough on climate change – indeed, Willetts says too little about this – but it is hard to argue that they can be singled out on these grounds.

Willetts is unsure whether the !boomers are a bad generation or just a big and lucky one. At one point, he insists that "generational name-calling" is unhelpful and that the issue at hand is simply a demographic one. But at other points, he labels the boomer generation a "selfish giant", which sounds like !name-calling to me. The main problem facing him is the absence of hard data. There is good academic research in the US on "inter-generational accounting", but no equivalent here.

Think it answers most questions on the whys, wheres and whatever else.....though undoubtedly, people will, and are obviously free to, disagree.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

Not sure anyone has so far put the case across as succintly as the above though, so its useful in that regard.

Comments are interesting!

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Heres one to argue over...

Think it answers most questions on the whys, wheres and whatever else.....though undoubtedly, people will, and are obviously free to, disagree.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

Not sure anyone has so far put the case across as succintly as the above though, so its useful in that regard.

Comments are interesting!

They are indeed and Willetts is obviously an intelligent man and is entitled to his views.

Personally he doesn't impress me in the way he articulates himself in the media. That may be a political personal.

Like most of his peers cross party they don't live in the real world.

I guess we are going round in circles on this one.

It is alright to quote a few chosen statistics, that aren't disclosed, at a macroeconomic level.

The majority of the comments posted here tell it how it has been in reality and with the experience of life.

Believe what you want it is your choice, I suggest you broaden your library though.

Bullfighter

A lot of people have done well from property over the last 30 years... leading to a widespread condition of normalcy bias.

The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation...

In this case, how the price of property in the UK is inevitably going to fall and fall hard.

"Success with money has become intimately connected with inflation – people have got rich not through productive, wealth-creating activity, but because they bought a house or stock at a time when general asset prices were rising. We have confused talent with being bullish." Hugh Hendry