Rift grows between young and old

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Serious question - do you have kids?

Yes.

I do not feel they are ""entitled" to a higher standard than myself, unless they earn it through their own efforts. Oddly enough they agree.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Yes.

I do not feel they are ""entitled" to a higher standard than myself, unless they earn it through their own efforts. Oddly enough they agree.

This is nothing to do with entitlement.

"Entitlement" has just been applied to the argument by the usuals.

This is about the very large difference between the young and older generations at this moment in time. No younger person has suggested they are entitled to anything, and neither does the original article.

I find it somewhat bizzare, having kids, that you wouldn't want them to have better prospects.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

why should other generations prevent the same sort of development opportunities they had?

Can you explain how the older generation are preventing the younger generation getting development opportunities.

A._Badger

ukcarper wrote: »

Can you explain how the older generation are preventing the younger generation getting development opportunities.

I'm glad somene asked that. I was sitting here scratching my head wondering quite what it was the 'go to university on the strength of a couple of O levels' generation was being so cruelly excluded from.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is nothing to do with entitlement.

"Entitlement" has just been applied to the argument by the usuals.

This is about the very large difference between the young and older generations at this moment in time. No younger person has suggested they are entitled to anything, and neither does the original article.

I find it somewhat bizzare, having kids, that you wouldn't want them to have better prospects.

My comment was not directly related to the article, but to a general assumption that life should be better for each subsequent generation. This is a relatively recent thing.

Yes, I would want by children to have better prospects, but that is in their hands and they should not expect it as a right.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is nothing to do with entitlement.

"Entitlement" has just been applied to the argument by the usuals.

This is about the very large difference between the young and older generations at this moment in time. No younger person has suggested they are entitled to anything, and neither does the original article.

I find it somewhat bizzare, having kids, that you wouldn't want them to have better prospects.[/QUO.

Why do you think prospects for young people are getting worse and what would you do to improve them.

pqrdef

PaulF81 wrote: »

why should other generations prevent the same sort of development opportunities they had?

Like what? I didn't earn much in my twenties either. Never even thought of buying a house. In those days less than 5% of the population went to university, though there were more opportunities down the pit.

Social mobility cuts both ways. Why do the children of successful parents assume that success should be handed to them on a plate? They will have to achieve their own success by their own efforts, otherwise they will slide down the social scale, and so they should.

toby3000

olly300 wrote: »

The complaints about the baby boomers are due to what toby3000 said.

In regards to those older a lot of young people do not know any people 70+ to talk to. So they won't get to hear first hand accounts of what it's like to not have a welfare safety net. If they had they would stop ranting.

You'd have to well over 70 to actually remember the pre-Welfare State world.

I work in a museum and spend a fair amount of my time emphasising to people how precarious working class life was, and I hope that they think about the joys of the welfare state.

As I've said, if you're parents did well out of the 60s-80s ( as my very unambitious parents did) then it doesn't matter, because you'll inherit the wealth they've accumulated. However, I do think we're moving to more divided society, and simple examples like the government abolishing Child Trust Funds (which benefit everyone) while leaving ISAs in place (which broadly benefit the middle-classes) will make this worse.

toby3000

pqrdef wrote: »

In those days less than 5% of the population went to university, though there were more opportunities down the pit.

And you didn't HAVE to go to university. Even teachers didn't have to have degrees. I completely agree that the spread of higher education is ridiculous, but it is a reality in the modern jobs market.

suburbanwifey

toby3000 wrote: »

You'd have to well over 70 to actually remember the pre-Welfare State world.

I work in a museum and spend a fair amount of my time emphasising to people how precarious working class life was, and I hope that they think about the joys of the welfare state.

As I've said, if you're parents did well out of the 60s-80s ( as my very unambitious parents did) then it doesn't matter, because you'll inherit the wealth they've accumulated. However, I do think we're moving to more divided society, and simple examples like the government abolishing Child Trust Funds (which benefit everyone) while leaving ISAs in place (which broadly benefit the middle-classes) will make this worse.

I feel the child trust fund was one of Labours biggest mistakes and hurt our country so much. No wonder we are in this mess today, the masses of money Labour threw on this sort of thing. I'm very pleased it is being abolished. If people have children, its up to them to support them, not the wider economy, not the job of Govt. and certainly not the job of tax payers, which is where the child trust fund money came from. ISA's are there for anyone who chooses to save and do benefit everyone. Child trust funds only benefited children and cost tax money from those that chose not to have children.