Baby Boomers making out like bandits as usual

gailey_2

Bit about me

im 31 grew up small town wales where hardly any fulltime jobs with high house prices and lack of stuff to do I felt needed to do better.

chose to go uni 99 first year of student loan so accrued £12,000 student loan debt plus overdraft/cc despite working part time throughout which in all honesty did impact my studies.
My parents split they didnet have money to support me.

So I graduated 2001

found it hard to get well paid fulltime job.
always worked retail, degree in business and finance
so stayed in retail started near the bottom as supervisor on £11,000

1st flat privatly rented me and boyfreind both worked fulltime

fastfoward 2003 moved cities for boyfreinds job to expensive area
got job there slightly more money £15,000
split diodent want to move as was settled.
so got cheap studiuo apartment in commuter town poaying train fares and £350 a month rent for 1bedroom plus bills.

met hubby got married we did it cheap about £5000
moved into rented house £600 a month thinking just be temporary
by that time we had combined income of £52,000 fab.

went to barclays they offered us £120k not enough to buy a flat at time where we lived.
abby 145k and nr £160,000 but we were unsure and dident have deposit to purt down.

2006 chose to start a family went back to work fulltime payingf £800\+nursury fees.
rode scooter as cheaper than car.

2007 credit crunch happened gave up job as had 2nd child and childcare so pricey

we have found things harder last few years

hubbys wage not gone up
few other secure jobs about
no family near so no childcare
some debts mainly due to car as we found it hard to save with just 1income,.
everythings gone up last few years.

we havent had holiday abroad since 2006.
we dont holiday every year went on sun hol last year nothing this year.
rent goes up every year
so does council tax

we cut back on everything we can.
a lot of youngsters and familes on oldstyle just trying to make ends meet

just brought 2nd hand washing machine
have cheap 10quid payg mobile for emergancies
buy all clothes 2nd hand
shop around for food and cook from scratch
rarly go out
have low disposable income

so not all 20-40 year olds live the high life.
once our debts qare paid hope to save
currently looking part time job as need the extra money

in hindsight I do think if hadent gone to uni maybe i be better off and a homeowner by now.

i will have to retire at 70
currently have no private pension
hardly any savings
rent privatly so pricey, get no benefits.

my parents not baby boomers acknowledge they had it easier and sometimes dont understand what its like these days.

fastfoward to 2011 you 16-18

do you

go uni get into debts?
will you get a job after uni?

with that debt how will you afford to

get married
start a family
buy a house

if leave school at 16-18 after gcses/alevels

will you find well paid fulltime job with career prospects?
espceially in smaller towns/rural areas.

even driving learning, test and insurance

can they afford to drive get a car
can they afford to save or rent their own place and move away from mum and dad on min wage?

either way its really hard right now so give young people a break


I dont think its baby boomers fault.
But feel older people should acknowledge that things are different and life is harder in some ways

and all get on.

Really2

I am mid-30's by the way, and think all generations have not had it easy.

Long life and increased population are the cause of what people conceive as "boomer greed". They have not manufactured it to suit themselves nearly all are idle passengers.

Also if they have accumulated great wealth, will it not just be passed back in to the children, grandchildren and the system?

I hold no anger to any generation, life is always playing the hand we are given. Can't say I would ever want to swap.

Linton

Generali wrote: »

The current generation have paid for the previous generation's pensions. Now the kids are expected to pay a much larger bill for an altogether longer and more comfortable retirement.

It is possible to argue that the contract was broken when the current group about to retire decided not to pay for the younger generation's higher education.

It is also possible to argue that the state pension was only meant to pay for a couple of years (on average) in retirement so a retirement age of about 75-80 would be appropriate at present.

No generation has paid for the next ones higher education - it's too expensive. In the BB days the cost problem was solved by denying higher education to the great majority. It was only accessible to a relatively few who had the chance of taking A level and achieved good results, or the highly motivated who studied for qualifications whilst working full time.

Graham_Devon

Alright, I been outdone.

Mobile phones are indeed a luxury.

Hope none of you have one!

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You can run a mobile for less than £10/ month. It hardly demonstrates that baby boomers had it easy because they didn't have to fork out all that money.

You are agreeing with me, possibly without realising it.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Alright, I been outdone.

Mobile phones are indeed a luxury.

Hope none of you have one!

I do, but as I said it is a luxury and if timer were hard I could cut it out of my monthly spend.

But how many sold are the new all singing iphone on a 24m contract??

So I think what you are arguing is advantageous, having a mobile phone can be sometimes be advantageous.

That does not get past the fact most mobile phones are discretionary spends, if they were just essential for contact we would have no iphone etc.
So the market seems to show the demand is for a luxury item not an essential spend.

I am not knocking those that purchase them, but I am sure they know they are paying more for what they want, not what they need.

But you have sort of higlighted the difference and why joe blogs seems to be a luxury goods purchase. Company mobiles tend to be just functional, not like the ones consumer demand.
So functionality drives the corporate spend, that kind of shows that the consumer spend is the driver of demand for the new era phones etc.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

The current generation have paid for the previous generation's pensions. Now the kids are expected to pay a much larger bill for an altogether longer and more comfortable retirement.


In practice I agree with you but that isn't how it is/was sold. Certainly not to those boomers that are being vilified

It is possible to argue that the contract was broken when the current group about to retire decided not to pay for the younger generation's higher education.

That is one argument but the boomers didn't make that decision, elected politicians, who perhaps more than 50% didn't elect, made those decisions in the same way that all decisions are made by an elected government. No body put that decision to the vote in the same way the EU will not be put to the vote it will be left to those intelligent people in parliament.

It is also possible to argue that the state pension was only meant to pay for a couple of years (on average) in retirement so a retirement age of about 75-80 would be appropriate at present.

So within the space of probably a decade we have suddenly required said contract to be torn up and the date drawn out all of a sudden. At a point when youth employment is so high you would be happy for the old to continue to hog jobs? It also ignores the point that the majority don't have the savings or assets to bridge that gap either. I don't dispute that the retirement age may need to be slipped out in a controlled manner. Don't forget though that a good proportion of society is suffering from illness related to lifestyle that 30 years would not really be heard of - Obesity and its myriad side effects for example, it may be that old age may have peaked.

It also ignores the effect that a large number of estates will also pay IHT if they have done so well.

For the sake of brevity I will not go on.

I guess you are really looking for a reaction, as you generally make a lot of sense.;)

lessonlearned

gailey - thank you for such a searingly honest self portrait.

Well done on tackling your debts. I wish you well. All I can say is keep at it - you will get there eventually. Honest. It just seems like it takes forever.:rotfl:

This was our position when we were in our 30's and 40's, although we were struggling to pay mortgage rather than rent. However, the principles are the same. Rent or mortgage - it's still about putting a roof over your heads.

My parents couldn't afford to buy a house until they were well into their 40's. I don't think later house buying is as uncommon as we like to think - even in days gone by when house prices were a bit more affordable - when looked at in terms of earnings/prices ratios.

Even then - not many managed to buy a property in their 20's.

I can remember when OH and I were in our 30's and being in dire straits - in debt up to our eyeballs, OH working all hours, two small children and like I said doing car boots to put food on the table.

Trust me - it does get better.

The reason that (some) oldies have a bit of money and are reasonably comfortable is simply they've been around a bit longer. They've worked longer and had more time to build up some capital.

Not all though - there are many "oldies" who are struggling - either ill health, redundancy, unemployment or just low pensions - especially those who worked in the private sector. Not all retirees have gold plated state-funded industry pensions (civil service, teachers etc)

Re the to go to university or not dilemma - I agree that's a tough one. Both my boys did and both have considerable debt.

One has a job which requires a degree . He actually has a Phd in maths and is currently working in researching alternative fuels - gets paid a pittance.

The other works in retail and neither uses his degree skills or needs them. He gets just above the minimum wage.

There is no way either of them can afford to get on the property ladder - they probably couldn't even afford to rent a property by themselves.

The Phd son does a house share because he cannot afford to live by himself and the retail son came back home to live.

They've both worked long and hard for what seems like little reward. They console themselves that they are the lucky ones - they've managed to get jobs - of a sort.

I tell them try not to worry - recessions don't last for ever but tbh I have to admit things don't look easy for them.

But - as I pointed out in my earlier post - economic reality never is - at least not for "ordinary folk".

I think the issues and problems may be different for each generation.

My dad suffered dreadfully during WWII, at one point being buried alive. Edited to explain - he "came to" under a pile of dead bodies and had to wait until nightfall to make his escape. Before that he was a child during the 30's and endured unbelievable poverty.

I was born in 1951 in the middle of rationing and housing shortages. My parents struggled for years trying to get some money together to find somewhere decent to live.

My dad's father was gassed in the trenches in WW1 and then went on to become a miner. He suffered from pneumonicosis (miner's lung disease) and died at 52. He was out of work for much of the 30's.

OH and I battled through the recessions of the 80's and 90's and now my boys have today's harsh economic climate to deal with.

It seems utterly pointless for each generation to try and outdo each other in tales hardship. Most of us have economic woes of some sort, some have wars to deal with too.

The baby boomers were lucky in one thing - a long period of peace. I just hope my boys are as lucky in that respect.

As for their economic prospects - well they'll just have to do what countless generations before them have done - do their best with what they've got.

Unlike Rugged Toast and similar posters who just want it all handed on a plate - that is exactly what they are doing.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I do, but as I said it is a luxury and if timer were hard I could cut it out of my monthly spend.

But how many sold are the new all singing iphone on a 24m contract??

So I think what you are arguing is advantageous, having a mobile phone can be sometimes be advantageous.

That does not get past the fact most mobile phones are discretionary spends, if they were just essential for contact we would have no iphone etc.
So the market seems to show the demand is for a luxury item not an essential spend.

I am not knocking those that purchase them, but I am sure they paying more for what they want, not what they need.

I think there is an insistence to somewhat label every young person as having an Iphone. This clearly isn't true.

It's also clearly true that an iphone could be deemed as a luxury.

But that's not what was said. The comparison was made that younger people simply have mobile phones and older people never had them. Well thats great, but they didn't even exist then. It's a none point which just drags out and makes the stupid argument worse, what with the incredibly snotty attitude of some on this thread (not you, btw).

I want to ask....I cut my mobile phone and live without one. Makes life difficult. I save £180 in a year (less than that if you factor in the £60 cashback I got on topcashback).

Is that extra £120 in a year going to propel me into home ownership?

We all know the answer. My electric bill will have risen more than that this year. So what's the massive problem with mobile phones?

If iphones are the problem - state so. But don't then suggest that everyone under 30 has an iphone, as clearly they don't, just as not everyone in the 60's was spaced out on drugs.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think there is an insistence to somewhat label every young person as having an Iphone. This clearly isn't true.

It's also clearly true that an iphone could be deemed as a luxury.

But that's not what was said. The comparison was made that younger people simply have mobile phones and older people never had them. Well thats great, but they didn't even exist then. It's a none point which just drags out and makes the stupid argument worse, what with the incredibly snotty attitude of some on this thread (not you, btw).

I want to ask....I cut my mobile phone and live without one. Makes life difficult. I save £180 in a year (less than that if you factor in the £60 cashback I got on topcashback).

Is that extra £120 in a year going to propel me into home ownership?

We all know the answer. My electric bill will have risen more than that this year. So what's the massive problem with mobile phones?

If iphones are the problem - state so. But don't then suggest that everyone under 30 has an iphone, as clearly they don't, just as not everyone in the 60's was spaced out on drugs.

mmm, don't think I did state iphones were the problem or that every under 30 has one?

But I would state a younger person spends more on a mobile than an older person on average.
Simply because younger people wan't the latest gadgets fashions etc. Perfectly normal.

I was not aware that the debate was that a mobile phone stops people buying a house.
I just came in where I saw that a mobile phone was not a luxury.
Sorry I see it as very much a discretionary spend, some will spend more than others getting what they want, not what they need.
It is more of a luxury spend rather than essential as the market seems to show people buy on the latest handsets etc.

But to add to your debate, it is not boomers who are stopping the young buying houses either. It is long life and increasing population in reality.

Good article here though
http://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2011/03/07/ipsos-the-mobile-phone-comes-of-age/

Currently, 53% of mobile phone owners claim they can't imagine life without their mobile phone and this is most likely to be the case amongst those aged 15-24 (74%).This bodes particularly well for mobile phone providers, especially as 1 in 3 intend to replace or upgrade their handset within the next 12 months (rising to half among those aged 15-24).

Not to surprising on usage.

But refresh rates by the younger people seem to indicate they view them as something other than essential as 50% look to get a new phone very phone every 12 months.

Won't help them get a house, but lowering spending can help you save more (obviously)