Why the baby boomers shouldn't feel guilty

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That's right, everything should be worse for the new generations than it was for you. That's the boomer ideology as far as I can see.

So you're happy to want the good stuff but not happy about the bad stuff boomers had to put up with.
Lucky for the youngsters things do change then.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Youth unemployment is over 20%.

Employers now want experience. It's a minefield out there. Long gone are the days when you could walk out of school and into a job within walking distance of your home.

What do you expect a 16 year old to do? You tell them.

On figures quoted yesterday, unemployment is now at the same level as it was in 1994. Generation X seem to believe they are the only ones who have ever seen a recession.

ash28

ILW wrote: »

On figures quoted yesterday, unemployment is now at the same level as it was in 1994. Generation X seem to believe they are the only ones who have ever seen a recession.

Youth unemployment is the highest since records began - those records everyone (media and politicians) keeps talking about started in 1992 - when the methodology was changed yet again this time to the ILO methodolgy.. And this is the first recessionary period we have had since then. I said in a previous post I don't believe much of what either the press or politicians have to say and this is one of the reasons - it's half truths and half lies.....The current figures also include nearly 300k in full time education looking for part time work.

They tend to forget that there was massive youth unemployment in the late 1970s and early 1980s that continued to rise even after the 1980s recession was over. Some of the blame for the likes of the Toxteth riots was laid at the door of youth unemployment.

In 1984 (if you look on ONS and the earliest I could find) after the recession had ended there were 2.1 million 16 to 24 year old not in work or training or education - 26% or 1 in 4 of them. And that was in spite of the government schemes to help them. The figures were calculated slightly differently to post 1992.

Youth unemployment IS far too high and the government really need to take a lesson from the 1980s and do something about it - invest some money - but do something. Youth unemployment was hugely damaging in the 1980s resulting in long term worklessness for a large number of young people and the problems this caused in their communities -

But, you're right ILW we have been here before - but worse - up to now.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

On figures quoted yesterday, unemployment is now at the same level as it was in 1994. Generation X seem to believe they are the only ones who have ever seen a recession.

Thats nonsense, and yet another simple lazy generalisation.

Graham_Devon

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

They found themselves in the situation that the powers that be put them in just as every generation does and need have no guilt about anything.
In this world nobody owes anyone anything,you have to get out there and make things happen yourself.

Which is exactly what i said on page 2.

But the constant "sour grapes.....get on with it like we had to....diddums.....stop crying" is very tedious.

You recognise that you had a certain situation, you've stated that in the post above. So why keep basically insulting others? As I said on page 2, a little bit of recognition goes a long way.

Seems you recognise it, but reading some of the posts with the insults, can't seem to admit it.

Theres enough statistics and research out there that all comes to the same conclusion. The babyboomer has had the best of all worlds. It doesn't mean they didn't have tough times, it just means they had it better than anyone else is likely to currently living, and better than their own parents. People keep saying "yes, it was easier, but not that easy". Well that's all this is about. it may not have been that easy years ago, but it's even less easy now.

It's where we go from here. But there definately is a vocal set of babyboomers physically trying to make life worse for their children, by blocking new ventures, taking whatever they can without working any longer etc etc. That cannot be denied.

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But there definately is a vocal set of babyboomers physically trying to make life worse for their children, by blocking new ventures, taking whatever they can without working any longer etc etc. That cannot be denied.

Perhaps. But it can be quantified. Unless you are guilty of exactly the same generalisation of which you accuse other posters. And a pretty banal one at that.

cotleigh

No-one (unless they were somehow in charge of major policy making) needs to feel "guilty".

All most people do is make the best of the circumstances that they find themselves in.

"Boomers" did not get together and cause house prices to rise. Each person bought a house that they could afford to buy, at the time. They could not cause the market to either rise or fall. They just did what looked best for them at the time.

This whole idea of "guilt" is nonsensical - everyone strives to get the best they can for themselves and their families - that's all.

olly300

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I know I wouldn't expect a good weeks work or dedication from them if I paid them peanut wages.

I know plenty of people who started on peanut wages.

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I am not an employer so I cannot fairly answer that question you asked me, but I suspect those employers who pay peanuts to their staff reap the rewards with the salaries they take, company cars, flash houses etc. Yet they can't afford to pay a living wage to their staff? its just that they can get away with paying peanuts.

Sorry I've had to snip your post.

The real problem is with the lack of training and investment in workers particularly young workers in this country NOT paying a 16-21 year old peanuts.

I've worked for different companies and the best companies as a worker were those not run by accountants, but those who actually had worked in the business. These companies actually gave proper training (on the job and otherwise ), had career progression for those with the right attitude and limited the use of temporary/casual workers.

If you know you have a chance to be the manager of the section or train to be something else in the company with better prospects then starting on peanut wages isn't a problem.

If however you know or feel the company is going to lay you off, you don't have a permanent contract and are being paid peanuts why work?

olly300

ILW wrote: »

On figures quoted yesterday, unemployment is now at the same level as it was in 1994. Generation X seem to believe they are the only ones who have ever seen a recession.

Since there was a cohort of Generation X between the ages of 16-21 and about to enter the job market during the last recession I strongly doubt it.

Also for those of us who were younger than that we had parents who lost their jobs, had their business fail or had their business retract greatly so it affected our lifestyles.

BTW some Generation Xers have siblings who are baby boomers and Generation Y as not everyone comes from a nice nuclear family.

Frogletina

Graham_Devon wrote: »

. But there definately is a vocal set of babyboomers physically trying to make life worse for their children, by blocking new ventures, taking whatever they can without working any longer etc etc. That cannot be denied.

Ok. I guess a baby boomer with any savings/personal pension cannot win whatever they do, which are the ones which I am sure you are talking about.

Should that baby boomer work for longer than they need to (I mean their personal circumstances, not age) and pay taxes on their earnings, or leave and release a job for a younger person - and pay taxes on their savings/pension.

You decide