Resentment of this generation

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I plan children around the age of 29, by the time I am 32 many chavs will be on the second generation, now even if they went if only 2 children that would mean there is 2 adult, 2 teenage and 2 baby chavs while my worker family is 2 adults and 2 babies.

Never mind the fact 2 wouldn't get them a big enough house.

Seriously we are going to be overrun.

How does being able to buy a house at 1999 prices resolve this?

abaxas

wotsthat wrote: »

How does being able to buy a house at 1999 prices resolve this?

Most people want stability for a family.

You either get that buy buying your own home or becoming a chav and getting a home for life.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

You don't need to be of child bearing age to be alive.

so
4, 32 ,60 (28 year gap)
and
4, 20, 36, 52, 68 (16 year gap, late bloomers in chav words)

No but to increase population you do.

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

Most people want stability for a family.

You either get that buy buying your own home or becoming a chav and getting a home for life.

excellent, has it become illegal to rent property or is that not an option any more?

do people who rent not have stable lives?

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

You don't need to be of child bearing age to be alive.

so
4, 32 ,60 (28 year gap)
and
4, 20, 36, 52, 68 (16 year gap, late bloomers in chav words)

I’ve noticed that my original example was wrong and by having children in there 30s there would only be one generation of childbearing age at a time, whereas the chavs would have 3.

So there will be 5 generations of chaves to every 3 generation of non chavs. If you wait until you are 34 there will still be 5 generations of chaves to 3 generations of non chaves.

Anyway this conversation has strayed from the original topic and I’m sure we both agree that something needs to be done about the chaves (for want of a better word). But the solution is not that simply or it would have been taken already.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

do people who rent not have stable lives?

After seeing my brother move (on average) every 2 years due to landloads I would so no, its not stable, and I refuse to bring any child of mine into the world when I can't say which placw will be 'home' from one month to the next.

ukcarper wrote: »

I’ve noticed that my original example was wrong and by having children in there 30s there would only be one generation of childbearing age at a time, whereas the chavs would have 3.

So there will be 5 generations of chaves to every 3 generation of non chavs. If you wait until you are 34 there will still be 5 generations of chaves to 3 generations of non chaves.

Anyway this conversation has strayed from the original topic and I’m sure we both agree that something needs to be done about the chaves (for want of a better word). But the solution is not that simply or it would have been taken already.

My point is dual edged actually, the chav generation gaps has got short since we started paying them to have children so the full effect is'nt yet relised until they hit saturation to which then as you say no change, but the other edge is the workers are slowing down due to the world we have to live in now. Workers slow down, chavs speed up, there is certainly a change going.

I will say I have taken this form cause to effect slightly, but it is related.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

After seeing my brother move (on average) every 2 years due to landloads I would so no, its not stable, and I refuse to bring any child of mine into the world when I can't say which placw will be 'home' from one month to the next.



My point is dual edged actually, the chav generation gaps has got short since we started paying them to have children so the full effect is'nt yet relised until they hit saturation to which then as you say no change, but the other edge is the workers are slowing down due to the world we have to live in now. Workers slow down, chavs speed up, there is certainly a change going.

I will say I have taken this form cause to effect slightly, but it is related.

I’m not sure how you got the top point associated with me I never posted it.

Percy1983

You asked the question (quoted) and I answered it, yes its not your point to start with.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

You asked the question (quoted) and I answered it, yes its not your point to start with.

I didn’t ask this question it was chucky.

Originally Posted by ukcarper
do people who rent not have stable lives?”

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

After seeing my brother move (on average) every 2 years due to landloads I would so no, its not stable, and I refuse to bring any child of mine into the world when I can't say which placw will be 'home' from one month to the next.

Wind the clock back 30 years and we did have stable rented property, council housing.

It was then that the sell off started allowing houses to go at heavily discounted prices fueling the start of the boom.

I wonder if we went back to large scale "council housing", to provide a stable pool as option, this in its self would help moderate the market, as a whole and provide the additional housing needed.