So how much did it cost...

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think this is just a way of writing off what he states, to be honest, hence why all those thanking the "youg are lazy, they have iphones, wah wah" are now suggesting the same thing....oh, he must be winding us up.

I mean seriously, you had someone stating they had it bad as their house was 2.5x their income. Basically like saying now....oh, we had it hard, houses were 75k against our 30k income.

He's picked up on this, and quite rightly too IMO. It's alright lating off the younger generation, but purlease don't write figures like that down!

Do you agree that all the problems of today are down to the boomers i'm sure you don't.

My first house was 5.3x my income but as you don't know what type of house where it was and what my earnings were compared to average it's pretty meaningless as was the other example.

House prices are high I agree probably in relation to earning probably slightly higher than when I bought and the long term average. The reason people found it easier to save a deposit was because they lived with thier parents I think Percy has shown that if you do the same now it's possible to do the same.

Also the majority of boomers do not have gold plated pensions.

A large portion of the National Debt was caused by the banking crisis was that exclusively due to boomers.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

As Graham points out, your interpretations of the facts are at some level of variance to logic and reason. Such as people complaining it took them an entire year to save up for one quarter of a house.

I'm not actually trying to shift my failings on to others, I am pointing out to you lot that the rosy dosy view of your generation's contribution to the world that you hold isnt shared by many people outside of it.

Considering how much has now been written about this topic, a considerable amount by sober boomer commentators like David Willetts and Jeremy Paxman , I dont think this should be a terrible surprise to you.

I mean, you are all basically in complete denial aren't you?

Two privileged people who probably never known what is was like to struggle and benefit from a decent education denied to the majority of us at the age of 11.

thorsoak

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.

Sigh.....as I have told you, time after time, Rugged Toast THE MAJORITY OF BABY BOOMERS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS MYSELF ....our pensions are only just about keeping us afloat - many, like myself, are back in the workforce again ....oh but maybe I should apologise for taking a job from a school/university leaver - but they didn't want to start work at 6.45 am for nmw ......

Many are acting as unpaid nannies for their children's children thus saving childcare costs - or they are carers for their own aging parents.

Of course there are the fat cats - but please please please stop tarring us all with the same brush!

ukcarper

thorsoak wrote: »

Sigh.....as I have told you, time after time, Rugged Toast THE MAJORITY OF BABY BOOMERS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS MYSELF ....our pensions are only just about keeping us afloat - many, like myself, are back in the workforce again ....oh but maybe I should apologise for taking a job from a school/university leaver - but they didn't want to start work at 6.45 am for nmw ......

Many are acting as unpaid nannies for their children's children thus saving childcare costs - or they are carers for their own aging parents.

Of course there are the fat cats - but please please please stop tarring us all with the same brush!

Stop being silly we are all sailing around the world on our private yachts sipping champagne whilst we fleece our tenants.

I wonder how old the casino bankers are.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

Two privileged people who probably never known what is was like to struggle and benefit from a decent education denied to the majority of us at the age of 11.

And there we go again.

Whatever source you disagree with you decide doesn't count, until all the reasons why they don't count start contradicting each other.

It doesn't matter if they're a baby boomer, a government minister and one of the world's leading academics, they're rich so their opinion doesnt count.

Successful boomer broadcaster and journalist with a career of documenting the world spanning decades. Too rich doesn't count.

The opinion of anyone in Generation X and Y. Too young, they don't count.

House price statistics, cost of living stats, youth unemployment, pensions forecasts, tax shortfalls. Well they're just too ... statisticy aren't they, they miss out the human picture; so they just, don't, count.

Anecdotal evidence from people who are priced out and fed up, they're just bitter and workshy, so their opinions don't count.

As far as I can see based on your methodologies the only statements you believe to be valid are those which match your own pre-determined assumptions.

And any A level science student can tell you a hypothesis based on an assumption that only tests itself, has no validity at all.

Good night!

ruggedtoast

thorsoak wrote: »

Sigh.....as I have told you, time after time, Rugged Toast THE MAJORITY OF BABY BOOMERS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS MYSELF ....our pensions are only just about keeping us afloat - many, like myself, are back in the workforce again ....oh but maybe I should apologise for taking a job from a school/university leaver - but they didn't want to start work at 6.45 am for nmw ......

Many are acting as unpaid nannies for their children's children thus saving childcare costs - or they are carers for their own aging parents.

Of course there are the fat cats - but please please please stop tarring us all with the same brush!

As far as I remember you aren't a boomer as you are a bit too old.

RenovationMan

ruggedtoast wrote: »

In your case clearly the country made a great investment.

Is this really the best you can do?

Actually, I'll take the brevity of your response (compared to the literary diarrhea response to others) as a complement that you can't put forward a counter argument against my points. :cool:

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you agree that all the problems of today are down to the boomers i'm sure you don't.

Stop this nonsense!

Did I ever state all problems are down to boomers? No!

You (and loads of others) are simply writing off anything you don't agree with and concluding you are therefore correct.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And there we go again.

Whatever source you disagree with you decide doesn't count, until all the reasons why they don't count start contradicting each other.

It doesn't matter if they're a baby boomer, a government minister and one of the world's leading academics, they're rich so their opinion doesnt count.

Successful boomer broadcaster and journalist with a career of documenting the world spanning decades. Too rich doesn't count.

The opinion of anyone in Generation X and Y. Too young, they don't count.

House price statistics, cost of living stats, youth unemployment, pensions forecasts, tax shortfalls. Well they're just too ... statisticy aren't they, they miss out the human picture; so they just, don't, count.

Anecdotal evidence from people who are priced out and fed up, they're just bitter and workshy, so their opinions don't count.

As far as I can see based on your methodologies the only statements you believe to be valid are those which match your own pre-determined assumptions.

And any A level science student can tell you a hypothesis based on an assumption that only tests itself, has no validity at all.

Good night!

The way you talk you would think house prices have never been this high before they were in the 70s unemployment has been higher, cost of living higher in 70s ok some people has access to better pensions but a lot less than you imply.



The job situation for young people is very bad at the moment mainly due the transfer of manufacturing off shore and I can’t see how you can hold a hole generation responsible to that.

You never moan about generation x who have benefited the most from the recent booom.

As for the two you mention I gave up them when they said how good we had because we had free university education whereas that was only available to a select few and most people left school at 15 and didn’t even have the chance to sit o levels.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stop this nonsense!

Did I ever state all problems are down to boomers? No!

if you read the post you see I didnt think you had but toasty seems to.

You seem to ignore the fact that life was different in 70s and people did stay at home and go without almost everything to be able to buy. I not saying it is possible for everyone to do that has things have changed but the main problem is not house prices although I admit they are a problem but they were when I first bought.