The generation poorer than their parents

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

You won't talk about anything but mobile phones or food.

You have simply ignored, several times, everything else I have bought up for comparison. I don't know why, all i can assume, is you do not wish to discuss those items.

wotsthat

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.

The OP, again, was about the possibility that today's generation may be worse of than their parents.

That's measured in pounds and pence. i.e. which generation will be financially better off. It's about what the different generations spend/ spent not about whether they need(ed) the stuff they are spending their money on.

If we just wanted to base the argument on absolute need then it would be simple..

- what did water cost in 1970
- what did heat cost in 1970
- what did 2000 calories/ day cost in 1970
- what did shelter cost in 1970
- what did clothes cost in 1970
- what was the average earnings in 1970

That might give some interesting figures but doesn't tell you about what people really spend/ spent their money on and the effect on their wealth.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You won't talk about anything but mobile phones or food.

You have simply ignored, several times, everything else I have bought up for comparison. I don't know why, all i can assume, is you do not wish to discuss those items.

What other things are do you consider necessities. I agree you need a broadband connection, which generally requires a phone line but has been pointed out you can get that for £20 a month.

geneer

Ha ha.

Theres some tounge in cheek discussion on another thread where its demonstrated that a 12year old kid is much richer than a king because the kind didn't get to play angry birds on his Iphone.

Perusing the above, it seems that as a parody of the boomer position, its absolutely spot on.

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

Ha ha.

Theres some tounge in cheek discussion on another thread where its demonstrated that a 12year old kid is much richer than a king because the kind didn't get to play angry birds on his Iphone.

Perusing the above, it seems that as a parody of the boomer position, its absolutely spot on.

In your case you've absolutely no-one to blame for the position you've put yourself in except for yourself.

Can't you just stick to spoiling threads that involve your hate figures rather than spoiling all of them?

twirlypinky

Having wandered way away from the point there, which is it? A the younger generation better off than their parents or not?

Personally i think not.

wotsthat

twirlypinky wrote: »

Having wandered way away from the point there, which is it? A the younger generation better off than their parents or not?

Personally i think not.

Are the younger generation better off now than their parents? Clearly not and hardly unexpected.

The question was whether they will be later in life.

Alvin Hall was on Radio 4 yesterday on the same subject but focusing on retirement saving. Unfortunately, the young person they've chosen to represent the disenfranchised youth is anything but representative. However, it does seem that the younger generation are confronted with many more choices as to where to spend their money and are simply making the wrong choices.

One of the commentators, an economist, still thought it highly unlikely that they'd be worse off because economic growth over a long period tends to make people better off regardless.

geneer

wotsthat wrote: »

In your case you've absolutely no-one to blame for the position you've put yourself in except for yourself.

Someone needs a hug.

Sorry wotsthat, but you've absolutely no clue as to what position I'm in. You are right, though not in the way that you intended.
The position I find myself in is entierly due to my own efforts and decision making process. And I am rather pleased with the outcome.

You really mustn't assume that those posters who aren't compelled towards self promotion and random boasting (text book short man syndrome in other words) somehow find themselves at the bottom of the heap.

wotsthat wrote: »

I

Can't you just stick to spoiling threads that involve your hate figures rather than spoiling all of them?

A statement which says a lot more about you than me I think.

olly300

ukcarper wrote: »

I had to move and commute 20 miles to be able to buy a house in 1972.

Yes but I suspect you expected to be in your job for more than 2 years and to get annual pay rises.

Plus depending on where you live going 20 miles can take you 30 minutes or an hour an a half.

Virtually everyone I know over 26 has been made redundant, or decided to move job after not having a pay rise for 3 years plus.

I was talking to the co-ordinator for the volunteer work I've done and he stated that he had difficultly keeping volunteers for more than a year due to the number of people who are made redundant then can only find a job with a long commute.

ukcarper

olly300 wrote: »

Yes but I suspect you expected to be in your job for more than 2 years and to get annual pay rises.

Plus depending on where you live going 20 miles can take you 30 minutes or an hour an a half.

Virtually everyone I know over 26 has been made redundant, or decided to move job after not having a pay rise for 3 years plus.

I was talking to the co-ordinator for the volunteer work I've done and he stated that he had difficultly keeping volunteers for more than a year due to the number of people who are made redundant then can only find a job with a long commute.

I must admit not many people I know have been made redundant and yes I did expect to stay for more than 2 years the commute was about 45mins. I made the comment because Graham implied that commuting to works was a new thing. People seem obsessed by the fact that house prices are 20 to 30% above the long term norm but the problems you highlight are a much bigger problem.