Baby Boomers making out like bandits as usual

ILW

Is the not in many cases overexpectation by garduates?

40 years ago around 5% of the population had decent degrees, and were by definition an elite.

Now, when half the school leavers get degrees, being a graduate no longer lifts you above the rest.

The idea that if everybody got a degree then all would earn graduate salaries and live graduate lifestyles was a load of tosh.

The top 5% of school leavers still do pretty well for themsleves.

Going4TheDream

ILW wrote: »

Is the not in many cases overexpectation by garduates?

40 years ago around 5% of the population had decent degrees, and were by definition an elite.

Now, when half the school leavers get degrees, being a graduate no longer lifts you above the rest.

The idea that if everybody got a degree then all would earn graduate salaries and live graduate lifestyles was a load of tosh.

The top 5% of school leavers still do pretty well for themsleves.

My old dad bless him once told me when I was small (in the 70's), 'you will need a degree to sweep the streets in this country in the future'

When you see the crummy jobs now that pay pants and state ' must be educated to degree level' maybe he was right....

Really2

beckythemadcow wrote: »

Surely you have remembered that the rich are now richer and that means that the "average" disposable income is hugely skewed by the top 1-2% massive disposable incomes.

Thats a fair skew 62 years and 20 million people.

I would find it nearly impossible to blame that as the reason when we have had increasing middle classes and I believe 1 in 3 working a supervisor or management role.

Even if it were true, the graph would indicate it was similar for them as they were better off than previous generations.

wotsthat

beckythemadcow wrote: »

Surely you have remembered that the rich are now richer and that means that the "average" disposable income is hugely skewed by the top 1-2% massive disposable incomes.

It's an average.

Are you suggesting that the 400% increase in disposable income since 1946 is because of a skewing effect of 1-2% massive earners?

Road_Hog

Really2 wrote: »

c)If that was required I can help.
This is done in real terms (as per today)


Real disposable income has risen, so would indicate we have more spare cash than previous generations after costs?
It dipped last year, but with graphs like above it is hard to conclude things are harder now.

Graphs and data like that always have a lag, if it were bang up to date, it would show more of a drop. For the majority, this is going to continue. It has been happening to the working class for some time now, but is now starting to hit the middles classes, which is why it is now starting to create some 'noise'.

The gap between the rich and the poor is only going to grow wider and at a more rapid rate than ever before. Whilst the 20th century (Britain) generally showed an improvement for all walks of life, such as two week foreign holidays, home ownership, new car/plus second car ownership, extra white goods and better quality food being far more affordable, this has gone into reverse. People are cutting back, value brands in supermarkets are rocketing, car journeys and car purchase being reeled in.

Now, I'm not someone at the bottom of the pile in his 20s complaining about my future, I'm a 46 year old that came in right at the tail end of the good times, I'm not sure whether I qualify as one of the last of the baby boomers. But I also don't have a pull up the ladder Jack attitude and have much sympathy for today's young.

But don't blame the baby boomers, blame the elites and your politicians, that have opened up our economic borders (and geographical borders) and are allowing a transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.

On the Left, you have the Marxists, who don't believe in patriotism or nationalism (I don't mean the Swastika type patriots, I just mean proud of your country and its achievements) or national borders and want globalism under their rule. And on right, you have the business elite globalists that have no attachment to their country, only to money and relish the prospect of immigrants and reduced labour costs (more profits). Which is why the LibLabCon all seem to have the same agenda and it's difficult to tell the difference between the three.

I expect that the graph curve above, in following years will continue to drop, almost mirroring the left hand side. It's a very Dystopian future, hopefully not a Malthusian one.

Graham_Devon

It seems the babyboomer argument is also alive and kicking in Canada

After Generation X and Generation Y, here comes a new name for young Canadians: Generation Squeeze.

A British Columbia study finds that young families in the country are facing growing financial and time pressures even as their baby-boomer elders head into easier-than-ever retirement.

It all has the makings of a “silent generational crisis,” according to researchers.

“The baby boomers as parents lucked out, and their children for the first time will not enjoy the same standard of living as their parents,” said Paul Kershaw, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia. “It’s become hard to raise a young family and easier to retire.”

Prof. Kershaw, an associate professor at the Human Early Learning Partnership, released a study on Tuesday with colleague Lynell Anderson showing that new families today have a lower standard of living than the baby-boomer generation, even though the Canadian economy has doubled in size since 1976.

And while the share of young women contributing to household incomes is up 53 per cent, average household incomes for young couples overall have remained static since the mid-1970s, after adjusting for inflation. Yet housing prices during the same period rose 76 per cent nationwide.

That’s left Canadian parents raising young kids today squeezed for time, money and child-care services, Prof. Kershaw said.

suki1001

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You definitely have!

Apart from anything else, you're leaving out the fact that most people of that age didn't drive or run cars. How many people in their late teens early twenties nowadays see running a car as a luxury?

I would think many of them do. Have you seen how much it costs to learn to drive and then there's the insurance. For the young it's eyewatering.

gailey_2

Thats really interesting its a global trend not just related to uk.

when you think about it young greek wont have such a good retirement either.

people in middleeast may have a better life and be more wealthy now they have democracy.

also factor in culture as well in some countries africa, india, pakistan extended familes are the norm they all live together sharing wealth and supporting each other with childcare, business ect.

The trend in uk is everyone wants their own space
people move away from family for jobs.
I myself have no family childcare my mum worked as had lots free childcare so what she earnt even when with dad she was better off.

Think the economys hard right now no matter what generation you are.

yes theres some wealthy pensions but some poor ones too.

wright stuff brought up grammer schools allowed baby boomers from low income families to get on and earn good incomes. thise who dident go had good apprenticeships and learnt a trade.

most youngsters want good courses that will enable them to get good job =good income

school leavers want a job and independance

those in their 20,s 30s even want

security of

well paid secure job and place of their own

relationship perhaps marriage and family.

those in their 40,s 50 want to reduce hours and feel secure in their retirement and perhaps have their morgage paid off.

I came to the realisation a while ago can no longer have it all

a degree, a house, a family its all so expensive

all we can do is work hard
hope it gets better

shame canada was one country would love to live in

StevieJ

Looks like it is not all plain sailing for the Baby Boomers, or should I say 'Sandwich generation'

The Sandwich Generation is a generation of people who care for their aging parents while supporting their own children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_generation

suki1001

lessonlearned wrote: »

I have to smile - all this talk of mobile phones is just so funny.

Since when does a 16 year old need an I-phone.

We need a roof over heads, food in our bellies. We need to pay our council tax or we go to prison, we need to pay our fuel bills or we get left out in the cold when they cut off supplies.

Nowadays most people need a car because public transport is too expensive and unreliable - when it's even there in the first place:rotfl:.

If you need to have people able to contact you then a pay as you go is perfectly adequate - they are contacting you after all.

If you need to make an emergency telephone call to say a breakdown service or to let someone know you are running late (only good manners;) then a pay as you go is up to job.

Anything else is an extra - you don't need to use it as a sat-nav, or access your emails, or surf the net. They are just nice little add ons.

I-phones, Blackberrys, I-pods etc are all wonderful but they are toys - ok grown up toys but still toys.

£50 a month on a phone is just a symptom of not having enough money to do other things, like saving up for a house. It's not usually the root cause.


You'll just have to learn to be patient - just like the "greedy, selfish Baby Boomers" had to learn before you.

Well I know plenty of youngsters whose parents do buy their children these gadgets and their parents can afford them. Does it make it right? Definately not, but it happens.

But we are mixing up 2 different stages of life here. A 16 year old probably doesn't pay the bills, they're not likely to be saving up for a house, especially if they're still in full time education anyway. Their parents are paying for these things. More fool them, but it's not 16 year olds that are the problem if that's the case. It's their parents who can't say no.