Brickbats for boomers in awful article

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Three assumptions

Sorry, I just had to correct you.

Obviously, my headonistic, wasteful lifestyle may just have me confused!

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, I just had to correct you.

Obviously, my headonistic, wasteful lifestyle may just have me confused!

If we are going to play semantics, in my dictionary point in this context is defined as an idea, opinion or piece of information that is said or written. So it can certainly be an assumption, and is not necessarily presented as a hard fact. No correction was therefore necessary, and perhaps you were already enjoying that hedonistic (note spelling), wasteful lifestyle whilst at school.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This is exactly the point.

People now who are scrimping are likely never going to get to the point where it pays off, regardless of how many more years the government keep extending the pension age.

For boomers even if you started out with nothing, working hard and saving paid off.

For Gen X and Y it most probably won't.

I honestly dont know how to get through to you lot. You seem to think the world is exactly the same now as it was for you apart from everyone has iPhones and central heating.

Still not sure of your point. I seem to know a fair few "working class" people in their late 20s and early 30s who are doing pretty well for themselves and are buying houses. Possibly it is the more entreprenurial types than in the past though.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Think how boomers treated the "forgotten generation" who were pensioners in the 80s and 90s before the winter fuel allowance etc. As you reap so shall ye sow, boomers.

I think you are referring to the selfishness of the Thatcher/Major era? Ducks and retires......

Percy1983

I will say personally I don't blame a generation but maybe some of those with a generation.

The one thing which does bother me is these generalisations about the young a keep hearing, yes boomers worked hard to get where there at, yet now we have to work harder to get to the same point and are labelled lazy if we only work as hard as they did and have less to show for it.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say personally I don't blame a generation but maybe some of those with a generation.

The one thing which does bother me is these generalisations about the young a keep hearing, yes boomers worked hard to get where there at, yet now we have to work harder to get to the same point and are labelled lazy if we only work as hard as they did and have less to show for it.

I know plenty of young people who work hard but why do you think they work harder than we did.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

I know plenty of young people who work hard but why do you think they work harder than we did.

I am not saying all young people work harder than all older people did.

I am saying young people have to work harder to get to the same point, are all the young doing that, certainly not.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am not saying all young people work harder than all older people did.

I am saying young people have to work harder to get to the same point, are all the young doing that, certainly not.

Why do you say you have to work harder to get to the same point.

CLAPTON

It's a nonsense argument to discuss who worked harder.

The facsts are that there has been a steady increase in living standards since the end of the second world war up to about 1007/8 (ok there were a few realatively minor recessions)

Everyone, including the young and the bloomers and the over 66s have benefited (on average).

The price of houses has had several booms over that time but there was a steady increase in the percentage of owner occupiers until recently when we have gone in reverse.

Arguments that say the reason for the reverse is that some people are 'greedy' and others are 'lazy' are pretty meaningless;
one needs to look at proper economic and demographic reasons for the change.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

It's a nonsense argument to discuss who worked harder.

The facsts are that there has been a steady increase in living standards since the end of the second world war up to about 1007/8 (ok there were a few realatively minor recessions)

Everyone, including the young and the bloomers and the over 66s have benefited (on average).

The price of houses has had several booms over that time but there was a steady increase in the percentage of owner occupiers until recently when we have gone in reverse.

Arguments that say the reason for the reverse is that some people are 'greedy' and others are 'lazy' are pretty meaningless;
one needs to look at proper economic and demographic reasons for the change.

I think that sums it up quite nicely.