Over Privileged Boomers are not 'Sacred Cows': Wilby

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, I'm not against boomers, not at all. Many (probably the majority?) have already retired at those ages, my parents being one of them.

All I'm suggesting (again) is that there needs to be acceptance, but as we see above, I simply got labelled as ditesting my parents because I suggested that.

Wish I'd stayed out of this thread!

The vast majority of boomers haven't reached retirement age yet - the oldest boomers will be turning 66 this year. Anyone older than that isn't a boomer. Apart from some of the older women who were able to retire at 60 unless they decided to defer their state pensions - one of my friends did that and carried on working until she was 65.

I'm a boomer and I'm 55 - 11 years away from retirement age (at the moment) - there are some more than 20 years away.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

And you're seething with resentment over this. How sick are you?

How am I "seething with resentment", please?

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

It won't sink in, no matter how often we say it.

It's only one definition.

The United States Census Bureau considers a baby boomer to be someone born during the demographic birth boom between 1946 and 1963.[9]

Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1943 through 1960, when annual births increased over 4,000,000. Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, well known for their generational theory, define the social generation of Boomers as the cohorts born from 1943 to 1960, who were too young to have any personal memory of World War II, but old enough to remember the postwar American High.[10]

Another definition for the Baby Boom is the decade after the Second World War, that is 1946 to 1955.

Graham_Devon

And while looking for that, I found this

They were the beneficiaries of the 1944 Education Act which first made secondary education free for all. As youngsters, at university with no fees to pay and a grant to live off, they augmented their free education with free love – after sexual intercourse was invented in 1963. Following the dawn of the era of sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll they bought massive houses for next to nothing, sat back and did nothing, and watched house-price inflation make the value of their nest-eggs soar. Now, they are retiring on index-linked final salary pensions and learning to SKI – an acronym for Spending the Kids' Inheritance.

The Baby Boomers are, the argument goes, the most spoiled generation in British history. Having invented the Youth Generation they neglected ever to grow up. They have squandered the patrimony their prudent and parsimonious parents left them, and seem intent on leaving little behind for their own offspring. A survey for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation a couple of years ago found that a fit and active Saga Generation was bent on spending their savings – and using downsizing and equity release to take cash out of their homes – to splash out on holidays and cars, with two-thirds saying they "did not worry too much about leaving a legacy".

By contrast the younger generation is paying for its university education, building up high levels of debt, finding it tough to get a job, even tougher to get on the property ladder and not even thinking about building up a pension.

Yet these are the people who will pay the bill for the profligacy of parents who, the critics say, have been not just selfish but reckless. Other countries have ageing populations but they have not generated problems as bad as the Baby Boomers.

Britain's Ageing Parents have, over the course of their lives, taken £6 out of the welfare state for every £5 they put in, according to Demos. They have behaved as though their homes were all the piggy bank they needed, neglecting to save enough and then borrowing against their property to finance an extravagant old age.

Better say goodnight!!

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And while looking for that, I found this

You keep digging up this rubbish what university education most of us were told we were failures at 11 and never given the chance to go to university.

Our properties might now be worth 20% more than if they had only gone up in line with wages about £30k on the average house.

I've told you the big advantage that was the availabillty of good jobs and that is where I feel young people and by that I mean people in their 20s are missing out.

By the way you have no real idea what the future holds back in 60s lots of people though we would all die in a nuclear war.

thorsoak

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And while looking for that, I found this


Better say goodnight!!

You fail to quote your source - could I have it please.

Thanks for the info - although I am sorry that you - and your ilk resent the older generation so much.

It's a sad society that does not appreciate its elders - the next step in the downfall of such a society is neglect of its young : then follows the implosion of society.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How am I "seething with resentment", please?

You're banging on about things that are no big deal and grossly exaggerating their significance.

And your remarks about unsustainable unaffordable state pensions are fascinating. You've obviously been got at by the propaganda. Somebody has fed you a horror story about how you'll end up supporting 3 pensioners as well as yourself, and put the wind up you good and proper. It's all bullocks.

The state pension can never become unaffordable, because no promises have been made about who will get what. If necessary to balance the books, they'll take our houses, move us into workhouses and feed us gruel. And when I say "they", that means you.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They were the beneficiaries of the 1944 Education Act which first made secondary education free for all.

And we know what kind of a pile of steaming bull we're in for as soon as we read that. Because everybody born since 1935 has had free secondary education. And more so those who weren't chucked out at 15 with no qualifications, like many of the boomers, but were kept at school until 16 and given CSEs and GCSEs.

Every generation has been more expensively educated than those before it. And trying to make an anti-boomer argument out of university tuition fees is pathetic.

ruggedtoast

thorsoak wrote: »

You fail to quote your source - could I have it please.

Thanks for the info - although I am sorry that you - and your ilk resent the older generation so much.

It's a sad society that does not appreciate its elders - the next step in the downfall of such a society is neglect of its young : then follows the implosion of society.

Good point. I agree it is a shame that your generation haven't looked after old people better than you have.

It's terrible the way pensioners are treated, farmed off to miserable care homes, shoved out of the way, bullied into depriving themselves of their assets by selfish late middle aged children.

Young people haven't fared much better under boomerism. Massive unemployment, the second highest rate of depression in the developed world, the highest level of generational inequality since the war, a bankrupt country which has been in recession for years; and a massive bill to pay for housing and pensions they'll never see themselves.

I hope we can avoid the collapse of society though.

Percy1983

I am with Graham I don't have resentment for the generation before, it just annoys me when they even can't admit they had it easier.

I will say many boomers will admit they had it easier (my parents included).

With that the arguement of you deserve to pay 4x more for housing because you have iphones available to you does make me chuckle.