Baby Boomers making out like bandits as usual

abaxas

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

An estate where the same people have lived in the same houses for 40/50 years? That's a one off!

You'd be suprized!

Once people are settled they tend not to move.

Fred_Bear_2

abaxas wrote: »

Take for example.

In the 60/70's there was huge building in the area where I was born. Lots of people moved in and had families.

Recently there has been attempted planning permission for more homes and the people who originally moved into the estates are complaining about more building.

The people who took advantage of the building boom in the 60/70s are now refusing any more building in the area.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

So what you are saying is that all people born between 1946 and 1964 are hypocrites because some of the people who bought homes in your area in the 1960s and 1970s have refused planning permission for any more homes to be built.

Ok, that's an interesting point of view.

abaxas

Fred_Bear wrote: »

So what you are saying is that all people born between 1946 and 1964 are hypocrites because some of the people who bought homes in your area in the 1960s and 1970s have refused planning permission for any more homes to be built.

Ok, that's an interesting point of view.

So buying a home in a huge estate then wanting no more to be built isn't hypocrisy?

I've now decided I want no more cars built, because I already have one.

reweird

abaxas wrote: »

Take for example.

In the 60/70's there was huge building in the area where I was born. Lots of people moved in and had families.

Recently there has been attempted planning permission for more homes and the people who originally moved into the estates are complaining about more building.

The people who took advantage of the building boom in the 60/70s are now refusing any more building in the area.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

What rot. Just because there is no building work going on in the area you want does not equate to no building work going on anywhere else. You youngersters just want it all right now on a plate given to you for a third of the price.

abaxas

reweird wrote: »

What rot. Just because there is no building work going on in the area you want does not equate to no building work going on anywhere else. You youngersters just want it all right now on a plate given to you for a third of the price.

1) I'm not a youngster
2) the younger generation deserve the opportunity to have a family without having to resort to being a chav.

Things are meant to improve, not get worse.

Oldernotwiser

abaxas wrote: »

You'd be suprized!

Once people are settled they tend not to move.

"Suprized!" (!) - I doubt it. On average, people move every 7 years.

The original purchasers of your estate houses are long gone to bungalows in Dorset and retirement properties in Spain. It'll be the younger generation who now need family houses who are objecting to further building.

reweird

abaxas wrote: »

1) I'm not a youngster
2) the younger generation deserve the opportunity to have a family without having to resort to being a chav.

Things are meant to improve, not get worse.

1. Well stop acting like one, throwing your dummies about. 2. They can. If they are struggling now they can adjust their sence of entitlement for the immediate term and get on with their lot. Things improve for us all eventually if you are prepared to work for it. Youngersters don't deserve everything on a plate handed to them.

Fred_Bear_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8840963/Baby-boomers-are-very-privileged-human-beings.html


Quote:
'Baby boomers are very privileged human beings'

As Will Hutton of the Work Foundation – and a baby boomer himself – pointed out: "Having enjoyed a life of free love, free school meals, free universities, defined benefit pensions, mainly full employment and a 40-year-long housing boom, [the baby boomers] are bequeathing their children sky-high house prices, debts and shrivelled pensions. A 60 year-old today is a very privileged and lucky human being."

Getting this thread back to the OP...
Let's take a few points:

'Free love' - is there less now?
'Free school meals' - only for the poorest - has that changed?
'Free universities' - In the 1960s in my borough, Newham, only about 5% of children got a university place (no doubt more in more affluent areas), so 95% did not get free university and all my friends at uni had to work in the holidays etc because it wasn't completely free. What is the university rate now - about 45%?
'Defined benefit pensions' - Quoting from the Telegraph article: 'almost one in five of those aged between 55 and 64, have some kind of earnings-linked pension scheme'. So more than 80% of 60 year-olds do not have an earnings-linked pension.
'Mainly full employment' - Has Will Hutton forgotten the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher and the early 1990s under Mr Major?
'40-year-long housing boom' - This requires a topic all of its own but one question is: How does this benefit the baby boomers? They can't spend it unless they take equity release or move to a cheaper house. Their children will benefit if they inherit the house.
'Shrivelled pensions' Surely (80% of) baby boomers have shrivelled pensions already - at least the present generation have time to plan.

Times are always hard for some people, they always have been. But on average young people now are far better off than fifty years ago. (At this point I'll resist the urge to describe the conditions I grew up in.)

Going4TheDream

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8840963/Baby-boomers-are-very-privileged-human-beings.html



(There's a picture of a smug looking retired couple in the link as well, just to inspire extra anger.)

With a wasted generation hitting the dole queues all over the country, their pockets stuffed with worthless new labour exam certificates, and their own parents struggling to pay the rent to their boomer btl slumlords, it is clear that these boomers have the country stitched up like a kipper.

I am sorry but statements like this make me very cross. My parents worked hard to get on the housing ladder. We lived in a sh!tty rented basement flat in London whilst they saved their a$$es off to make life better for me and my sister. Neither went to Uni and both held down fairly average working class jobs.

We left London when I was 4 and moved into a new house. By todays standards very cheap yes but it still took lots of budgeting to afford it. We didn't have a car, my dad cycled 10 miles each way to work and back, in all weathers.

Clothes were handed down from me to my sister, and there were not the luxuries that many youngsters today seem to consider as normal. Christmas and birthday meant one small present and a few bits, stuff that we needed, like a new dressing gown not the plethora of expensive gifts that again seem to be the norm for young people today.

It was only a few years later when my sister and I went to 'big' school that my mum worked and even then only part time, it just wasn't worth it before as childcare was so expensive and there were no government hand outs (working tax credits/child tax credits and such like there are today (except family allowance).

It was just as well she did as there were three day working weeks and all sorts and that helped us keep paying the mortgage. Yes things got better and we were able to have holidays and a car but we were never a frivolous family, meals were home cooked, few takeaways and even fewer meals out. My folks hardly ever went out.

As it happens my folks divorced and the house ended up being sold prior to massive price hikes but had they still been living there, which they would as the house was a home, I would not begrudge them on penny of its wealth or value today.

There are many many people like my parents, who had no influence over the rising price of their properties and most see them as homes.

What exactly do you propose that these 'baby boomers' do to help the situation?

Youngsters today need to knuckle down, determine how important owning a house is and then make the necessary lifestyle choices to support that. It would seem that too many want it all and are not prepared to make the sacrifices to get it. Ditch the sky tv, ditch the nights out, ditch the holidays, cut out the new clothes, lose the fancy new smart phone and expensive contract, etc. These are the nice to haves when you can afford them. I know there are many that do this but many dont. They have come to see such things as necessities and not the luxuries that they are.

(sorry rant over)

reweird

Well said. I will not begin to describe the rationing we went through. All it would be lost on todays have it all want it all me me me youngersters.