I'm beginning to feel paranoid .......

HeatherintheHills

FATBALLZ wrote: »

This is another misleading thing. I've looked at holidaying in the UK, and just can't justify the cost. Holidaying abroad is actually a lot cheaper these days (depending where you go of course).

Camping? Caravanning? Or a holiday camp *shudders at the memory*. If holidays in the sun are cheaper these days (I wouldn't know, haven't been on holiday for over a decade) then surely that is one of the many things your generation benefits from?

HeatherintheHills

FATBALLZ wrote: »

It's not a 'war', there are just serious imbalances and they should be addressed...

And exactly how do you propose that this is addressed?

FATBALLZ

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

The average salary today is £25,000. In 1972 was was £2,262 (source Financial Times) Women earned substantially less as that was pre-equal pay campaigns.

So in fact average wages are exactly the same, adjusted for inflation. My house was bought in 1972 for less than double that figure.

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

Average working week was over 40 hours, it was 1972 when the EU working conditions directive made its first appearance.

Not really changed then, my contract is 37.5 hours but in reality I do more like 40 (some periods has been far higher of course), same at every other job I've done. If you factor in commuting that's an extra 10 hours a week.

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

We started work at 14. University education wasn't really opened up to the working classes until the 1960s

I'd have been happy to start work straight out of school. 5 years of earning over 5 years of accruing debts sounds great to me. Employers in their wisdom though have decided not to recruit in my industry unless you have a degree. There are few well-paid career paths open to those without degrees these days.

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

And we still had mortgages when Black Wednesday hit. Interest rates went up from 10% to 15% in a few hours. Anyone who had a mortgage was about to lose their home.

And while I'm about it, mortgage interest rates, check this site and see how much movement there has been in the rates.

House values alone tell you nothing. To know what the cost of a home to a family was in any given period you have to include interest rates. Fancy paying 25% interest on your current mortgage like I once had to? Thought not.

Again, if I could have bought my house for less than twice the national salary, I wouldn't have bothered with a mortgage, I'd have saved up. And interest rates on their own from that period are not the whole story - MIRAS was a massive boost to mortgage affordability, hence the house price crash of 1989 when it was halved for dual-income households.

I'm not saying buying property was easy back in the day, it was however markedly easier than it is now. And regardless of what was easy and what wasn't, people who bought property pre-2003 are sitting very pretty now, and potential FTBs are totally screwed - 80% of today's FTBs are helped by parents (for the record, I'm in the 20%;)). Some balance needs to be achieved, if you move all of lifes goals out of the reach of the young, they just won't bother trying to reach them.

**Patty**

Don't remember a fuel crisis but i do remember a bakers/bread strike/shortage?

Dad & I were talking about it recently which has reminded me. My Dad (who was an engineer) used to travel 10 miles to the mill & buy a large sack of flour during this strike. He came home & took enough for us before splitting it into pound bags (weight) & then selling it at a profit :rotfl:to the people he worked with. I asked him how come ? His reply was that they were too idle to think of it by themselves.....but they would moan on and on about there being no bread.

Now whether that was the engineer/problem solving part of him or something else i don't know......but it seems that it doesn't matter which generation you are from, to a degree there will always be those who look for a way round the problem.....and there will be those who will moan all day long but not actually DO anything. And then there's those (like me) who spends life being the statue (never the damn pidgeon)...:D


And fwiw....Thorsy, i never think of you as old.......but i promise i won't tell the forum about those tartan pompom slippers you bought on ebay last week......No really i won't.



Oooopps.:o Runs>>>>>>>>>>>>

FATBALLZ

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

Camping? Caravanning? Or a holiday camp *shudders at the memory*. If holidays in the sun are cheaper these days (I wouldn't know, haven't been on holiday for over a decade) then surely that is one of the many things your generation benefits from?

Caravans aren't cheap, don't really fancy camping, are you suggesting 30 years ago most people only went caravanning or camping? I seem to remember we had booming tourist resorts in the likes of Bournemouth, Blackpool and Margate.

Of course cheap foreign holidays are a benefit to my generation, but thats off the point, it can't be used as a stick to beat the young with when they (or some of them at least) spend less in relative terms on their holidays than their parents did.

Welshwoofs

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Yes and this would be another of the ridiculous nonsenses that consistently gets unwarranted airtime (and 'thanks') on these forums.

Apparently, if you stand to inherit, then you cannot complain about the modern feudal system of wealth and status based on hereditary lines, because you are a hypocrite.

But it isn't ridiculous nonsense because a lot of those baby boomers released equity in their homes to help their children on to the property ladder. I'm 43 now and most people I know of the same age got their first house in their 30s and many of them had deposits paid by baby boomer parents.

I'd also add that although the retirement age is higher, I'm not sure we're that worse off. I remember when I was about 4-5yrs old my Mother bought her first house; she worked all week as a secretary and then worked the weekend too cleaning private houses (taking me with her) to pay the mortgage. That house had no central heating, no double glazing....in fact it didn't even have a bathroom. It was an outside loo and a tin tub in front of the kitchen fire. Until she remarried when I was around 11, our holidays consisted of camping. Our clothes were second hand and so was my first bicycle and we had no TV and no car. It was the early 70s and inflation was horrific so most of our food was either grown in the garden, given to us by friends who shot and if my Mother found a fresh pheasant or rabbit knocked down on the road we had it.

I compare that stuggle to me living on my own now and I have a nice house (in fact two of them) and over half my take home salary is disposable income. I don't struggle in the way my Mother did because I had opportunities she didn't get.

Now perhaps it's a generalisation, but I don't know any young person/couple who live in the type of surroundings my Mother took for granted when I was young. I don't know anyone who'd put up with no central heating or bathroom these days and I honestly, hand on heart, think that many people really have no idea what a 'struggle' actually is.

I certainly don't resent baby boomers; they had it a lot tougher when they were young than my generation did.

VfM4meplse

thorsoak wrote: »

And feel I must apologise for still being here on this earth at the age of almost 69

Don't be sorry, 69 is one of the best numbers, ever!

FATBALLZ

Welshwoofs wrote: »

But it isn't ridiculous nonsense because a lot of those baby boomers released equity in their homes to help their children on to the property ladder. I'm 43 now and most people I know of the same age got their first house in their 30s and many of them had deposits paid by baby boomer parents.

I'm sure they did, however that's not really the point, if house prices today were even close to historical averages, parental help wouldn't be needed, it's an odd form of reasoning to suggest that we should be happy that because our parents houses have gained £100k in unearned equity, and we shouldn't complain because they can use that to help their kids who have to pay £100k more to buy the same house.

a) Not every parent will agree to release this equity (possibly with good reason, if they never planned to downsize).
b) Not everyone has a property owning parent who can gift them equity.
c) Some people believe in meritocracy and would rather do it off their own back (often as boomers did when they started out).

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I'd also add that although the retirement age is higher, I'm not sure we're that worse off. I remember when I was about 4-5yrs old my Mother bought her first house; she worked all week as a secretary and then worked the weekend too cleaning private houses (taking me with her) to pay the mortgage. That house had no central heating, no double glazing....in fact it didn't even have a bathroom. It was an outside loo and a tin tub in front of the kitchen fire. Until she remarried when I was around 11, our holidays consisted of camping. Our clothes were second hand and so was my first bicycle and we had no TV and no car. It was the early 70s and inflation was horrific so most of our food was either grown in the garden, given to us by friends who shot and if my Mother found a fresh pheasant or rabbit knocked down on the road we had it.

I compare that stuggle to me living on my own now and I have a nice house (in fact two of them) and over half my take home salary is disposable income. I don't struggle in the way my Mother did because I had opportunities she didn't get.

Now perhaps it's a generalisation, but I don't know any young person/couple who live in the type of surroundings my Mother took for granted when I was young. I don't know anyone who'd put up with no central heating or bathroom these days and I honestly, hand on heart, think that many people really have no idea what a 'struggle' actually is.

I certainly don't resent baby boomers; they had it a lot tougher when they were young than my generation did.

I don't think that's really a fair comparison, because properties like that barely exist anymore, I certainly didn't see any when I was looking at houses. If those sort of properties did exist in any number, I'd be willing to bet that youngsters who couldn't afford anything better would be happy to buy them just to have their own place, rather than suffer private rentals for a lifetime. There are young people who moan despite not helping their own cause of course, but for some no amount of hard work will get them the family home etc their parents enjoyed.

thorsoak

FATBALLZ wrote: »

So in fact average wages are exactly the same, adjusted for inflation. My house was bought in 1972 for less than double that figure.



Not really changed then, my contract is 37.5 hours but in reality I do more like 40 (some periods has been far higher of course), same at every other job I've done. If you factor in commuting that's an extra 10 hours a week.



I'd have been happy to start work straight out of school. 5 years of earning over 5 years of accruing debts sounds great to me. Employers in their wisdom though have decided not to recruit in my industry unless you have a degree. There are few well-paid career paths open to those without degrees these days.

OH started work at 16, but did part-time day release/night school to acquire his HND, I left school & started work at 17. Interestingly enough our 4 children went to uni, but we had to pay towards the grants of #1,2 & 3 - student loans came in at the beginning of the 90s, if I am correct, so we saved you some money there (if, of course, you were a taxpayer then!)


Again, if I could have bought my house for less than twice the national salary, I wouldn't have bothered with a mortgage, I'd have saved up. And interest rates on their own from that period are not the whole story - MIRAS was a massive boost to mortgage affordability, hence the house price crash of 1989 when it was halved for dual-income households.

When we bought 1st house, it was more than 3 times our salaries.

I'm not saying buying property was easy back in the day, it was however markedly easier than it is now. And regardless of what was easy and what wasn't, people who bought property pre-2003 are sitting very pretty now, and potential FTBs are totally screwed - 80% of today's FTBs are helped by parents - and we get no credit for that?? (for the record, I'm in the 20%;)). Some balance needs to be achieved, if you move all of lifes goals out of the reach of the young, they just won't bother trying to reach them.

We're the generation that grew up under the threat of the H-Bomb - unless you were a teenager/young person when the Cuban missile threat was less than 24 hours away, you don't know the meaning of fear of the end of the world and desparation - and from my experience of the younger (here I mean teenagers/early 20s people) they have every bit as much enthusiasm for life as we had - they'll reach their goals .....its the goals/aspirations of the generation born in the 80s that I have concerns about - Maggie's kids.

thorsoak

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Don't be sorry, 69 is one of the best numbers, ever!

Ah yes.....I remember it well