Why the baby boomers shouldn't feel guilty

BobQ

ash28 wrote: »

Your quote is also a huge generalisation.

A lot of people in the 1970s did not live in nice family homes - a lot of housing in this country was diabolical compared to today. There were huge lists for council housing (I knew plenty on them) and a lot of people were dirt poor and had absolutely no chance of ever buying a home. I can remember people (friends - just married) living in houses with no inside toilets during the 1970s.

Mothers often stayed at home to "nuture" their children because there was no childcare - no maternity benefits as we know them and companies could and did sack you if you got pregnant. Some companies expected you to leave if you got married let alone got pregnant. If you got married it was often the end of the road for a woman's career, and little or nothing in the way of state help for families. Yes unions did become too powerful.

Uni was free - but only 5% of the population could attend - that level was increased by successive governments until we have the situation we have today - where over 40% of people go to university - has the increase in numbers attending been an improvment - probably not.

Workers had very little in the way of rights during the 1970s compared to today - companies didn't even have to give you paid holidays (they were a privilege not a right) - let alone anything else. No maternity provision - no paternity leave - no holidays - no sick pay - lots with no pensions - no minimum wage - no equal pay - things could actually be pretty crap. Why you think workers rights had never been better I don't know.

I worked for a blue chip company in the 1980s and 1990s and the years I worked part time I wasn't entitled to a pension or sick pay - until the company were dragged kicking and screaming into equalising conditions between full and part time workers.

People who are 70 aren't babyboomers - however I am and I make no apologies for being one. I didn't choose to be born in the mid 1950s - I just was - the same as a lot of other people. I didn't attend university - it wasn't an option. We were able to buy a small house when we were in our late 20s - funnily enough around the same age as 2 of my children were when they bought their first homes. They are 32 and 31 now.

And yes we have a lot more money than our children do, we have a much bigger and nicer house than they do - we have nicer cars - we have better holidays too. I expect by the time they are in their mid 50 they will have similar to what we have now - they have similar to what we had at their age.

I don't know if they feel we've diddled them out of homes and careers and saddled them with a lifetime of debt - one of them will be visiting for a few days on Friday and I'll ask him.

An excellent summary of the misconceptions being peddled on this forum.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

in 1945 the UK government debt was 250% of GDP; this was reduced to 30% of GDP by 2003 ; congratulations to the people that sacrificed and worked hard to achieve tthis

in 1945 less than 4% of the UK were able to go to University; by foregoing consumption the people then living were able to invest in universities so that now anyone with suffficent ability can now improve themselves by attending Uni.

in 1945 there were no motorways and very poor transport infrastructure in the UK; by being willing to sacrifice current consumption the people duing the last 60 years have massively improved things

in 1945 less that 5% of houses had central heating or hot water on tap; well done those people that have invested in heating improvements so that over 80% of properties now have ch & hw

in 1945 the range of foods available to ordinary people were very limited and rationed: well done those people who have made it possible to cheaply buy a massive range of quality food stuffs at every reasonable prices

in 1945 personal computers, internet, mobile phones, cheap international travel, fitted carpets, cheap and reliable cars were not available: by the hard work and initiative of the people over this period, all these wonders are now readily available to all (even to a load of useless whingers)

in addition, over this period since 1945, the wondeerful people that inhabited the UK made massive advances in medical care, improving peoples lives wonderfully in almost every way

so one must raise a glass to the wonderful people that populated these fair isles during this period of unprecendented improvement in all the people standard and quality of life

the only blot on the horizon is that is seems there are people who so lacking vision and awareness of historical perspectives that they only see decline and fall rather than have the vision and desire to entend the massive progress that has been made over the last 65 years

well done everyone that contributed to these wonderful fair isles

Another excellent summary.

Its very sad those who believe that the solutions to the world economic problems we face are entirely due to a particular generation. They should show more imagination than to advocate siezing houses from old ladies.

geneer

Rinoa wrote: »

The vast majority of boomers will still have worked longer for their pensions.

Which will be eroded by inflation.

Reap what you sow eh.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Good grief.

Do you think the boomers have found a way to beat death?

Or do you admit that as all wealth is ultimately recycled to future generations then your point is wholly without merit....

Not strictly true though is it.

We are having to pay for our own care more frequently now. Meaning houses are getting used as currency.

I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of that, but I think it's somewhat silly to just assume everyone gets a house when their parents die, as thats just not the way it works.

A lot do. But if we are moaning about generalisations on this thread, then it's only fair to point the one you have decided to use out.

However, on this point, I feel it's extremely saddening to be using death money to suggest things are somewhat rosier in the future.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

...
Its very sad those who believe that the solutions to the world economic problems we face are entirely due to a particular generation. They should show more imagination than to advocate siezing houses from old ladies.

Fear not. There is balance and karma, because in a far flung location an opposite complaint is being levelled.

Right now the Chinese forums will be awash with the young generation (let's call them Generation Cash) complaining how the previous post-war generation (Generation Mao) held their society back.

A._Badger

It seems one mistake the 'baby boomers' have certainly made has been to have reared a generation of solipsistic, hardline redistributionist Stalinists, to whom the concept of private property means nothing.

So much for 'child-centred education' - it always did sound like a recipe for disaster.

ukcarper

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Get yourself a water meter then and pay the same "roughly" pro rata.

I have thought about it but I thought it would be better for the people who move when I do sell up and downsize.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I do not have a problem with baby boomers having 80% of the wealth, what I do have a problem with is 70 or even 80 year olds in huge 4 or 5 bedroomed houses when 30 working something year olds are unable to rear families in anything bigger than 2 bedroomed shoeboxes.

Its not just the younger generation that did this.
We did it and so did most of our friends.
We could'nt afford the five bed houses we now have at the time we needed them.
That was the usual thing that happened,you started at the bottom and worked your way up to the house you aspired too,not the one you may of needed or wanted at the time.
A large house would of been nice when I had my family but I could'nt afford it so could'nt get it.
You have to make the best of what you've got.

ukcarper

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Its not just the younger generation that did this.
We did it and so did most of our friends.
We could'nt afford the five bed houses we now have at the time we needed them.
That was the usual thing that happened,you started at the bottom and worked your way up to the house you aspired too,not the one you may of needed or wanted at the time.
A large house would of been nice when I had my family but I could'nt afford it so could'nt get it.
You have to make the best of what you've got.

I'm not sure where these people get the impression that all baby boomers live in 5 bed houses.

borkid

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Exactly

Where is the commonsence/morality/justice in a 70 or 80 year old woman living in a huge 4 or 5 bedroomed house, when her children and grand children need more space to rear the next generation.

"She has her rights" just does not cut it as a sound argument.

If this country is not carefull it will not be much longer before out future generations will be reared by welfare dependant chavs alone.

Maybe when I am 70 or 80 my 5 bedroom house will be too big but it has been bought in case my now independent but chronically ill adult daughter becomes too ill to look after herself. I hope it never happens but if it does then at least she won't be a drain on the hospital/ care services and she'll be cared for by people who love her.