The generation poorer than their parents

olly300

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

It's area dependent.

If you grew up in London and the SE, you would have noticed a lot of people you know not only commuted 45 minutes plus to get to work but also to secondary school.

So having to do a commute would be normal.

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

Agreed.

One of the main issues facing young people is job insecurity.

When you have met 16 year olds who have been made redundant and got redundancy money when the shops they were part-time staff in went into administration, you know there is something seriously wrong.

ukcarper

olly300 wrote: »

It's area dependent.


Agreed.

One of the main issues facing young people is job insecurity.

When you have met 16 year olds who have been made redundant and got redundancy money when the shops they were part-time staff in went into administration, you know there is something seriously wrong.

It’s not just job insecurity it the prospects you have when you get a job. Entering the job market straight from school in the 60s I had one big advantage over most people doing the same now that was that I was able to find a company willing to train me and had more opportunities to progress.

fc123

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.

I think they are overall plus they have more choices as noted by Alvin Hall in the post below.

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

His retirement book is great.....I am a closet Alvin fan

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 think this is the biggest change of all.....even I can remember school mates getting jobs in a bank in 1978/9 (5 O Levels reqd only) as trainees and would expect the job to last for life (or as long as they wanted it). The late 80's did tip the cart a bit though and I think that's where the change in how people are employed started.

However, if you are a qualified accountant say, you would expect to remain as an acountant but would move from company to company as and when. Years ago it was more likely you would stay within one firm for life.

I can't think that this is a really 'bad' thing though, just a change in how things are and most people have adapted or haven't known anything else.

yorkshirekev

ukcarper wrote: »

It’s not just job insecurity it the prospects you have when you get a job. Entering the job market straight from school in the 60s I had one big advantage over most people doing the same now that was that I was able to find a company willing to train me and had more opportunities to progress.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Training is not something employers want to worry about. Neither are decent contracts. You usually have to start as agency staff, before they are prepared to hire you.

When I look to the future (I'm 28), I despair as competition bites and employers take advantage.

mystic_trev

British families’ living standards have fallen by almost five per cent over the past five years, said Douglas McWilliams, the chief executive of the Centre for Economics and Business Research. The centre forecast that, over a 25-year period, this figure will reach 25pc, meaning that over a single generation families’ quality of life will fall significantly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8682872/Debt-crisis-Global-markets-plunge-as-eurozone-contagion-speads.html

:eek:

Graham_Devon

British families’ living standards have fallen by almost five per cent over the past five years, said Douglas McWilliams, the chief executive of the Centre for Economics and Business Research. The centre forecast that, over a 25-year period, this figure will reach 25pc, meaning that over a single generation families’ quality of life will fall significantly.

Yer, but that generation have Iphones. So they can't complain really.

fc123

yorkshirekev wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Training is not something employers want to worry about. Neither are decent contracts. You usually have to start as agency staff, before they are prepared to hire you.

When I look to the future (I'm 28), I despair as competition bites and employers take advantage.

Maybe they have little choice though?

Speaking as a small employer I would say that all employers have to be really careful before taking someone on nowadays as, if they are cr*9 you just can't 'let them go'.
There is masses more employment law nowadays which should have made things 'better' for employees but seems it's helped make things harder. The global effect is also huge.
The world was a much 'smaller' place when my grandparents were alive.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, but that generation have Iphones. So they can't complain really.
[/COLOR]

According to measuring worth website a £100 in 1972 is worth £984 using RPI but £1660 using average wages.

yorkshirekev

fc123 wrote: »

Maybe they have little choice though?

Speaking as a small employer I would say that all employers have to be really careful before taking someone on nowadays as, if they are cr*9 you just can't 'let them go'.
There is masses more employment law nowadays which should have made things 'better' for employees but seems it's helped make things harder. The global effect is also huge.
The world was a much 'smaller' place when my grandparents were alive.

I would agree with you to a large extent. But where is this going to take us? It can only be a race to the bottom as far as pay and conditions is concerned.

olly300

fc123 wrote: »

However, if you are a qualified accountant say, you would expect to remain as an acountant but would move from company to company as and when. Years ago it was more likely you would stay within one firm for life.

I can't think that this is a really 'bad' thing though, just a change in how things are and most people have adapted or haven't known anything else.

The bad things about it is:
1. If you aren't highly skilled or doing a role in demand then you will find yourself with plenty of periods of unemployment.

2. Companies don't like to train people up as they know they will leave

3. You need to be willing to be mobile and this could be international not just locally.

4. If you are highly skilled you will earn enough so moving around an area doesn't put you at a massive financial disadvantage if you are not then unless you are lucky you won't be able to afford to take a job in a different area.