The generation poorer than their parents

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You can get all these for less than £20/ month. There were landlines in the 1970's run by the nationalised GPO where you paid through the nose for the service. Much cheaper today.

Thats not really the point.

My point was specifically based on need. How many required a nationlised GPO phone line in 1970 to live up to current standards?

Not as many as now, as pay phones were all over the place. Was nice to have though I'm sure.

Think there is just 1 payphone in the town I'm sitting in at the moment. Only one I can think of anyway, in the actual town (not including suburbs). Theres one where I live, if you walk a mile, and that one needs some kind of prepaid card. Dunno what they are.

You have made my point though. You are simply comparing the cost. Not the requirements.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats not really the point.

My point was specifically based on need. How many required a nationlised GPO phone line in 1970 to live up to current standards?

Not as many as now, as pay phones were all over the place. Was nice to have thought I'm sure.

You have made my point though. You are simply comparing the cost. Not the requirements.

I'm comparing the cost because the OP states that, financially, this generation may be worse off than their parents. It's about pounds and pence surely - that's how you compare.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm comparing the cost because the OP states that, financially, this generation may be worse off than their parents. It's about pounds and pence surely - that's how you compare.

Not if you are comparing lifestyles 40 years apart.

Things change in those 40 years. No point comparing today with what you bought in 1970 and ignoring the changes in lifestyles.

Ok, it's worth doing if you want to prove a point that it's cheaper today, as it ignores todays general living basics....but I don't think that's a great way to compare things.

You didn't appear to answer the question, so I can only assume that the telephone line in 1970 was a luxury, rather than amore basic requirement that it is now (even homework gets sent from school via the internet now etc).

If you wish to compare financials, then include todays financials rather than basing it all on what you needed and luxuries in the 1970s.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I actually had a think about this....and while you may well be correct (I'm not sure, looking at some of the figures I have seen), there are items that are classed as what I'd call "near essential" today, that come out of monthly budgets, that didn't used to be needed.

By those items, I mean landlines, internet and mobile phones.

It's ok saying you don't need them, but life IS harder now than it was if you don't have them, and no one is including them in living costs for comparions, just simply ignoring them, or berating people for having them.

Why? Libraries have closed, meaning access to informaiton without the internet is harder. Telehone boxes and public pay phones are dissapearing, meaning being without mobiles is harder than it used to be. Landlines....well you need one for the internet.

So theres 3 extra costs which are all, in my view, pretty much needed if you want to live a normal run of the mill life today. It would certainly be harder without.

I think people are looking past this and just looking at a bag of sugar and comparing the cost. What we need to also do, is compare living standards and requirements.

I'd guess there are more monthly outgoings now than there was when a bag of sugar was 10p cheaper in relative terms.

Another comparison is childcare. I'm putting my son through it now, and some of the "baby boomer" generation I work with were simply aghast to how much it costs. "We had a free playgroup in our day where you could leave them for the morning". Mum stated she just had something going with a friend who ran a nursery from home for silly money....which you can't do now.

People say "fuel cost x amount at the height of the oil crisis in 1970" but totally ignore the change in culture and the explosion of commuting thats required to get to your jobs these days...

So many things have changed, while so many of these things are simply ignored in the comparisons.

Food is at least twice as expensive in real terms compared to the 70s so it is not 10p a bag of sugar, you can get a pay as you go mobile for £20 to use on the odd occasion it is really necessary.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not if you are comparing lifestyles 40 years apart.

Things change in those 40 years. No point comparing today with what you bought in 1970 and ignoring the changes in lifestyles.

Ok, it's worth doing if you want to prove a point that it's cheaper today, as it ignores todays general living basics....but I don't think that's a great way to compare things.

You didn't appear to answer the question, so I can only assume that the telephone line in 1970 was a luxury, rather than amore basic requirement that it is now (even homework gets sent from school via the internet now etc).

If you wish to compare financials, then include todays financials rather than basing it all on what you needed and luxuries in the 1970s.

What would you say are things that are essential today but were not in the 70s?

Many seem to think that full house central heating is, as an example.

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

What would you say are things that are essential today but were not in the 70s?

Many seem to think that full house central heating is, as an example.

So back to a previous point, we should pay more for houses because technology has moved on and so things have got cheaper.

ie, in relative terms you have get a 40" LCD TV for less than the first colour TV's.

So the colour TV then is was a bigger luxury than the 40" LCD now, but of course the the LCD is better.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Food is at least twice as expensive in real terms compared to the 70s so it is not 10p a bag of sugar, you can get a pay as you go mobile for £20 to use on the odd occasion it is really necessary.

Were skirting issues yet again, and fixating on the mobile phone yet again.

Pay as you go phones have their place in the market. But they will cost you dependant on usage. Thats why I have a contract at £17 a month. a PAYG would cost me far more than that. You've changed the context of what I was saying, and focused on the one emergency telephone call situation...while happily talking about the cost of a GPO telephone line rental and how much more that was, while ignoring the context that that was a luxury.

I just feel that these discussions which crop up quite a lot are a bit pointless if no one is willing to discuss the change in lifestyle and the weighting that therefore has on living costs.

It's ALWAYS about the mobile phone. It's always about the food that cost more in the 70's. Its never about car insurance, which has trippled in the last decade alone. Never about childcare, which is a bigger issue now than it was in the 70's. Never about technology which is seen, even by schools and the government as a basic requirement now, which wasn't even invented in the 70's. All these inconviniences simply get ignored and then people merrily come up with a conclusion based on ignorance.

It's always back to the iphone. It's always back to comparing interest only, while ignoring MIRA's complteley.

When technology enters the discussion, off we go, comparing the height of technology back then, with the everyday equivalent today. It's always comparing VCR's with the value DVD player available from Tesco today. Never do people compare height of technology with the height of technology today. I.e. VCR vs Blueray 3D player. But that's the equivalent tech.

If people want to discuss this, would it not be reasonable to discuss costs today, instead of assuming the cost and basic requirements today have not changed since the 70's?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Were skirting issues yet again, and fixating on the mobile phone yet again.

Pay as you go phones have their place in the market. But they will cost you dependant on usage. Thats why I have a contract at £17 a month. a PAYG would cost me far more than that. You've changed the context of what I was saying, and focused on the one emergency telephone call situation...while happily talking about the cost of a GPO telephone line rental and how much more that was, while ignoring the context that that was a luxury.

I just feel that these discussions which crop up quite a lot are a bit pointless if no one is willing to discuss the change in lifestyle and the weighting that therefore has on living costs.

It's ALWAYS about the mobile phone. It's always about the food that cost more in the 70's. Its never about car insurance, which has trippled in the last decade alone. Never about childcare, which is a bigger issue now than it was in the 70's. Never about technology which is seen, even by schools and the government as a basic requirement now, which wasn't even invented in the 70's. All these inconviniences simply get ignored and then people merrily come up with a conclusion based on ignorance.

It's always back to the iphone. It's always back to comparing interest only, while ignoring MIRA's complteley.

If people want to discuss this, would it not be reasonable to discuss costs today, instead of assuming the cost and basic requirements today have not changed since the 70's?

Do you need to spend £17 a month on a mobile phone or you do because it’s convenient I have a pay as you go and don’t spend that a year. Plus you seem to ignore the fact that you would be spending twice as much in real terms on food.

Miras was very nice but basic rate tax was 30% and interest rates were in double figures.

People like music back then and that is about 3x the price it was back then.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you need to spend £17 a month on a mobile phone or you do because it’s convenient I have a pay as you go and don’t spend that a year. Plus you seem to ignore the fact that you would be spending twice as much in real terms on food.

Miras was very nice but basic rate tax was 30% and interest rates were in double figures.

People like music back then and that is about 3x the price it was back then.

And it's back to the phone.

I despair.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And it's back to the phone.

I despair.

No you a fixated about the phone.

I’m not disputing things are getting hard again and I think half the problem is the younger generation have never experienced that.

What do you spend on food try doubling it and see how that impacts on your cash flow you might have to.