So how much did it cost...

Graham_Devon

lessonlearned wrote: »

Bottled water, (Evian no less), pret-a-manger sandwiches, cans of coke bought from a vending machine several times a day. Then of course there were all the after work trips to the pub, take-a-ways, going clubbing several times a week, stag and hen weekends away in foreign climes, the obligatory BMW, fancy mobiles, designer gear, gym membership and on and on and on.

If this is all true of the younger generation (which of course it's not, it's true of SOME of the younger generation.....and some of the 40's and 50's generations too), then I wonder how cutting all of this out would fare for the local economy and jobs?

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If this is all true of the younger generation (which of course it's not, it's true of SOME of the younger generation.....and some of the 40's and 50's generations too), then I wonder how cutting all of this out would fare for the local economy and jobs?

That's a fair point in itself, in a recession consumer expenditure on extravagances and rubbish is arguably better than no spending at all. But it's not directly relevant to the main discussion

The allegation is that if younger people were not so extravagant with all those things, often getting into debt as a result, then they would be able to save more for house purchase and for retirement, like their parents did.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If this is all true of the younger generation (which of course it's not, it's true of SOME of the younger generation.....and some of the 40's and 50's generations too), then I wonder how cutting all of this out would fare for the local economy and jobs?

Consumption, of this nature, does stretch across the age ranges, where that money is spent is different perhaps. The weighting, by volume of transactions, is towards the lower age ranges.

You are right that if this was cut out it would have a knock on effect to the economy.

That just goes to show how shallow and fragile our economy is.

ruggedtoast

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Let's go over a couple of things again, because the message doesn't seem to be getting through.

The boomer generation did not have everything that today's younger generation has and more. There was no such thing as a gap year (a scandalously expensive waste of time and opportunity in my view); they did not have every new gadget going as soon as it came out; few of them were given driving lessons and a car (let alone a new one) when they reached 17, few could afford heavy drinking several times a week and regular meals in upmarket restaurants; few had everything new when they did set up home; the many who lived at home in order to save a deposit gave their parents money for their keep; for the considerable majority there was no bank of mum and dad.

Now to pensions. Inflation-proofed over-generous public sector pensions are indeed an unreasonable burden on the taxpayer, including the young. But the mostly less generous private pensions draw on funds built up over working life and can not reasonable be described as a burden on the young. The young could have better pensions if they are willing to pay in more, and accept that retirement age has to be set recognising time in retirement, not time at work.

Labour can largely be blamed for the bloated public sector and failure to tackle the public sector pensions timebomb. Labour can also be blamed for the colossal public debt bill. Having said that more of the young tend to vote Labour -- no doubt based on peer pressure and fear of appearing 'uncool' not to do so. They should think again at the next election.

This is all repetition but it keeps getting totally and conveniently ignored in the offerings from certain posters and so merits reiteration.

It doesn't merit reiteration because it's a load of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Gap years. You do realise a traditional gap year involves spending a year overseas working for no money as a volunteer? Well that should get them used to a lifetime in boomer stitched up Britain anyway.

Heavy drinking and fine dining? Do you want to drop excessive caviar consumption in there as well?

Maybe if you stopped hanging around in Chelsea you'd have a more realistic view of what life is like for young people.

Boomer private pensions certainly do disadvantage younger people, because many companies are struggling to cope with these liabilities as they exist and therefore have long since stopped offering them to new entrants; who as well as having no private pension themselves also have to pay tax to fund the state pensions of the generation above them.

Nice.

Oh yes its all Labour's fault. They sure weren't the party that spent 13 years inflating house prices and borrowing like it was going out of fashion to buy boomer votes were they; while they simultaneously caused mass immigration to ensure youth wages and employment fell as fast as the cost of a semi detached in Ruislip went up.

ruggedtoast

thorsoak wrote: »

What many of today's generation seem to fail to take into account is that many of the baby boomer generation saved as a couple whilst living at home with parents, and before they started having children - and weddings did not go into the realms of fantasy/costs that seem to be the norm today.

"We want it all - and we want it now" seems to be the mantra echoed by people like RuggedToast.



I

Which conveniently and myopically ignores, again, the fact that the argument is nothing whatsoever to do with "having it all", unless you're referring to boomers.

It is about having a job, being able to work hard, and at least accumulate a stakeholding in society and the chance to own a modest house.

Something which a majority of school and university leavers now feel they have no hope whatsoever of achieving, largely thanks to your generation squandering a lot of resources, running up huge debts to stop your house prices falling, and then choking off the supply of whatever remained to make yourselves rich in retirement.

Nice, boomers. Just, nice.

ruggedtoast

lessonlearned wrote: »

Purchased first house in 1970.

New build two bed semi, no central heating, single glazing, no garage.

Purchase price - £4500
Mortgage - £3600

Deposit - £900

My maths makes that 20% - roughly the same as the banks are currently demanding.

Plus fees (sorry can't remember).

I think we had to find around £1000 all together.

No help from parents or relatives.

OHs wages £25 per week - £1300 pa
My wages £10 per week - £520 pa

I think the figures speak for themselves.

It took us over a year to save that £1000. We paid our parents our "board" and our travel to and from work. For that year we went nowhere, spent nothing - it was save, save, save. My then fianc! ran a car, and the only things I bought were tights and a few bits for my "bottom drawer".

You're right they do. You were able to buy a house at 2.5 times income and save almost 1/4 of its value in one year.

It's a shame you weren't a bit more patient and a little less f3ckless as if you'd waited another 3 years you could have owned outright and not had to pay all that interest. But thats the thing with the "want it now" generation, just no forward planning.

All those people living at home or in tiny rented rooms into their 40s must be rolling in it by now, imagine the effect on hpi that will have when they all hit the market at once.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how a family earning £22,000k - £30,000k pre tax a year, paying £800 - £1100 a month rent is meant to achieve the £30,000 deposit they will need to get a mortgage on the £160,000 the government thinks is an average house price?

ruggedtoast

A._Badger wrote: »

Gosh, you've done it now, lessonlearned! You've tried to confuse the 'want it all now! It's mine! Gimme!' babies with real life experience.

I could tell a very similar tale and, working as I do with the L'Oreal generation, hear the whining and watch the money being splashed around like ketchup.

It didn't get any better when you moved to Burger King then? And they give out free ketchup too. Still it must have been a real blow that they didn't let you carry your second star over to your new employer.

ruggedtoast

RenovationMan wrote: »

The way some people talk, you'd think that they had just arrived in Britain from outer space and are now liable for all the debts, rather than having gone through a free education system, indirectly received state subsidies via their parents in the form of child benefit, tax decreases (from 25% to 20% with basic rate) and had a free health service for when/if they get ill. Now it's time for them to shoulder the burden and some of them don't like it.

Well, they could move to the US or some other country without state provided benefits and see how they get on - probably fine until they get ill or have an accident, then watch them slink back home.

In your case clearly the country made a great investment.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Which conveniently and myopically ignores, again, the fact that the argument is nothing whatsoever to do with "having it all", unless you're referring to boomers.

It is about having a job, being able to work hard, and at least accumulate a stakeholding in society and the chance to own a modest house.

Something which a majority of school and university leavers now feel they have no hope whatsoever of achieving, largely thanks to your generation squandering a lot of resources, running up huge debts to stop your house prices falling, and then choking off the supply of whatever remained to make yourselves rich in retirement.

Nice, boomers. Just, nice.

I might be wrong but I would imagine you come from a middle class family because you seem to think most boomers swan around the world drinking champagne and eating caviar.

By the way my children have a lot more than I did at thier age but then again they didn't sit around moaning.

ruggedtoast