The Most Selfish Generation in History and the Debt Trap

Linton

dtsazza wrote: »

True. But do you believe that in one generation children have miraculously become that much more intelligent?

The lowering of the bar to entry doesn't really achieve anything other than make arbitrary statistics look better (and keep people out of work longer). As I noted above, I believe that degrees are primarily a discriminator function, so their value is relative.

The intelligent and proactive 10% who would have gone in the past will doubtless lead a successful life and end up in very well-paid jobs. The people 49% through the scale who just squeeze into uni now are going to do about as well as the 50% figure before.

Correlation does not imply causation; obtaining a degree does not magically make you better at doing paid work (which is ultimately what determines your employability and salary).


I do hope that we see a drop in the university percentage now, not out of spite but because I really believe that at the lower end it's a waste of time for the students and institutions involved, and a waste of taxpayer's money on top. I just hope that the government is brave enough to allow university figures to fall without caving to Labour's inevitable accusations of "decreasing social mobility", as if a degree (any degree) was a passport to the gravy train.


More technical training courses (such as apprenticeships and things like GNVQs, if the latter are relevant) would be a much better way to go. Let's free society of its obsession with university.

Partially agree but...

40-50 years ago there were a very large number of un- and semi-skilled jobs which a majority of the population could get and would expect to get. In those days and for a majority just getting an "office" job meant you had a chance of making something of your life.

As you say it was only the top 10% who had the chance of a good university education and would achieve the really well paid jobs.

Nowadays there are far fewer unskilled jobs around and the country needs a far higher number of people trained to university level. But of course still only the top 10% can get the really well paid jobs.

What this means is that we have many people trained to a level that would have got them into the top 10% previously and they therefore have the expectation that they should be in that group. Unfortunately basic mathematics says they cant all be. Result: whinging and a general feel of being hard-done-by.

MrRee_2

To be honest, the baby boomers may well outlive following generations ....... so there may not be any way of 'getting your own' back.

I wouldn't get worked up about it all really.

Sapphire

Well, it sounds as though Mr Paxman feels as though he has led a privileged life – which I am sure he has.

I know plenty of people of his age who didn't go to university (only about 10 per cent of people did when he was young), who live quite modestly and who have grafted hard all their lives to earn a living. They've also had to pay (as taxpayers) for bringing up other people's children (though they may never have had such benefits themselves, being childless) – children who have grown up with a massive sense of entitlement and selfishness.

Do some reading about life for many people in London, for example, as late as in the 1950s (and for some considerably later): then you may realize what real poverty and deprivation was. For such people it was a question of having enough food on the table to feed their families, not having iPods, 10-metre-wide plasma screen TVs, a new kitchen every year, the must-have three-bedroom property (with a lav for each bedroom, of course) even if you only have one child, and your lifestyle subsidized by your despised 'baby boomer' parents.

Think and do some research to help you reach impartial conclusions, rather than let envy of others cloud your judgements and blinker you so that you cannot face inconvenient truths. :cool:

Going4TheDream

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, it sounds as though Mr Paxman feels as though he has led a privileged life – which I am sure he has.

If I was earning a million plus a year I would feel I had lived a privileged life too....

He needs to step out of his licence fee payers ivory tower and get in the real world........

Jimmy_31

MrRee wrote: »

To be honest, the baby boomers may well outlive following generations ....... so there may not be any way of 'getting your own' back.

I wouldn't get worked up about it all really.

Chill out then:beer:

ukcarper

I like the bit about £400k less than babyboomers if they had £400k less than I did and most of my friends they would be in minus figures.

dealer_wins

All these threads on MSE these days where everyone is babbling about how everything is someone elses fault, and the "me me me" attitude. No wonder the UK is on its knees.

Niv

dealer_wins wrote: »

All these threads on MSE these days where everyone is babbling about how everything is someone elses fault, and the "me me me" attitude. No wonder the UK is on its knees.

Not quite everyone (go back and read my responses) :-)

StevieJ

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

he does have a point. the boomers are going to get hammered once my generation get in power. let the spite flow forth...

Won't you be in a compromised position though, with your defned benefit pension at 37? financed by the public

ruggedtoast

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, it sounds as though Mr Paxman feels as though he has led a privileged life – which I am sure he has.

I know plenty of people of his age who didn't go to university (only about 10 per cent of people did when he was young), who live quite modestly and who have grafted hard all their lives to earn a living. They've also had to pay (as taxpayers) for bringing up other people's children (though they may never have had such benefits themselves, being childless) – children who have grown up with a massive sense of entitlement and selfishness.

Do some reading about life for many people in London, for example, as late as in the 1950s (and for some considerably later): then you may realize what real poverty and deprivation was. For such people it was a question of having enough food on the table to feed their families, not having iPods, 10-metre-wide plasma screen TVs, a new kitchen every year, the must-have three-bedroom property (with a lav for each bedroom, of course) even if you only have one child, and your lifestyle subsidized by your despised 'baby boomer' parents.

Think and do some research to help you reach impartial conclusions, rather than let envy of others cloud your judgements and blinker you so that you cannot face inconvenient truths. :cool:

Do you all go to some kind of evening class where you learn to complain in unison about younger people owning iPods?

It is a good point though, I am pretty sure the reason most younger people cant find the £220k you need to buy a small house these days is because some of them may own a branded mp3 player.

And certainly no one over 50 owns one. Oh no.