Rift grows between young and old

evenasus

A._Badger wrote: »

Then again, I'm not eaten-up with jealousy when I see old people.

There are quite a few posters who are!

I feel sorry for them. Being so jealous and bitter must eat away at them.

brasso

Here we go again. How many times have I seen mean-spirited scraps around this subject being played out on internet forums?

For the record, I'm in my 50s and would tick a lot of the boxes that irk some people.

My main observation is that is is utterly unhelpful for people on both sides of this squabble to drag out the stereotypes just so that they can give them a good thrashing.

The puerile trollery from Paul81 about wasting money on medical treatment for the over-70s is no worse than some of the supercilious abuse from those old enough to know better about how the 'kids of today' want everything on a plate and have no aspirations. (The obvious riposte to that argument is that it was our generation who educated them.)

The truth is that these stereotypes just don't stack up. There are very many older people who are relatively poor. You have only to open your eyes, or even to read some of the posts on this forum to see that this so-called golden generation is itself split between the haves and have-nots. I am the second youngest of 4 siblings. I seem to have done OK, but none of my sister and 2 brothers own a property, for instance, despite us all being in our 50s. Two live on benefits in social housing. The other lives with, and looks after, my very elderly father. The idea that everyone of my generation spent our twenties snaffling cheap properties is totally ridiculous. When I was growing up, people who wanted to buy a house and take on a mortgage were regarded as quite weird. It was only when Thatcher appeared and started on about a property owning democracy that the mass hysteria started, and for many it was too late even then -- certainly in London where I lived.

Equally, I have a niece and nephew, both in their 20s and recently graduated who have landed potentially really good trainee jobs with major blue chip companies. I could also talk about many of sub-boomer age who became aggressive property buyers/developers around the millennium and since. In my experience, the Sarah Beany generation of property developers have been predominantly quite young. Certainly not in their 50s or 60s. No doubt some have had their fingers burnt but many have done well.

Of course, I'm not claiming that therefore all of the oldies are poor and all the youngsters are thriving, but I personally know enough exceptions to the sterotypes to make me want to shout "STOP!" when another round of pitiful bickering breaks out betweeen a handful of sneering kids and a handful of sneering greybeards. There is some truth in each position but we all know that it is just not possible to talk about "the boomer generation who had it all" and "the idle younger generation who wants everything handed to them on a plate".

The pathetic truth is that we need each other, and we should be looking for ways to work together for the greater good rather than parading our bigotry.

RenovationMan

olly300 wrote: »

My older brothers are baby boomers and they have children who are teenagers and at school.

They aren't unusual as not everyone especially men have kids in their 20s.

(My brothers are legally old enough to be my dad but that's a different story.)

Out of interest, what date range are you using for your 'baby boomer' classification?

quantic

I don't mind that older generations have enjoyed a few booms. I'm not bitter, because frankly I would rather be young than have all the gold in the world.

What annoys me is when they think that they have been so smart, even someone on an interest only mortgage who's house has tripled in value and literally the only equity they have is through luck and good fortune.

Yet somehow, bewilderingly - they believe its down to them being so savvy and clever.

They could have bought a house with a 150% mortgage, overpriced, at asking price and they would still have worked out ok in the end.

ukcarper

quantic wrote: »

I don't mind that older generations have enjoyed a few booms. I'm not bitter, because frankly I would rather be young than have all the gold in the world.

What annoys me is when they think that they have been so smart, even someone on an interest only mortgage who's house has tripled in value and literally the only equity they have is through luck and good fortune.

Yet somehow, bewilderingly - they believe its down to them being so savvy and clever.

They could have bought a house with a 150% mortgage, overpriced, at asking price and they would still have worked out ok in the end.

But how many people do believe that. Benefiting from hpi has always been luck and it isn’t linear some one who bought a house 90s could easily have done better from hpi than someone who bought in the 70s or 80s.

The gist of the complaints on this forum seem to be about house prices but I don’t see that as the major problem facing young people, I think that is finding a good job with good prospects. The big advantage I had when I left school at 16 in the 60s was that I was able to find a job with a company offering me good prospects and willing to spend money training me.

Graham_Devon

Younger people screwed over again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17429325

Minimum wage will rise 11p an hour. Except for those under 21, where the wage will be frozen.

Apparently this in in young peoples interests.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Younger people screwed over again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17429325

Minimum wage will rise 11p an hour. Except for those under 21, where the wage will be frozen.

Apparently this in in young peoples interests.

Those damned generation X'ers screwing over the kids. Scum! :mad:

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Younger people screwed over again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17429325

Minimum wage will rise 11p an hour. Except for those under 21, where the wage will be frozen.

Apparently this in in young peoples interests.

part of the minimum wage legislation should have been that it would always rise in line with inflation, in a similar fashion to benefits and pensions - i guess the problem is that the taxpayer doesnt foot the bill

on the other hand, at least young people these days get a minimum wage - pre 1999 and in the tory days you had the infamous £1-a-hour jobs

with all the 'work for benefits' talk that's going on, we may see a return to those days and that really would be screwing over young people

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Younger people screwed over again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17429325

Minimum wage will rise 11p an hour. Except for those under 21, where the wage will be frozen.

Apparently this in in young peoples interests.

What do you expect from the Tories?

RenovationMan

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you expect from the Tories?

You can't blame governments for these inequalities. The blame lies at the door of each and ever person in a particular age demographic. Everyone in that age group is to blame. All of them, but only if that age group does not cover the age of the person laying the blame.