So how much did it cost...

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

I am not convinced that this poster is necessarily male, as others are assuming. But that's neither here nor there. He/she is definitely motivated in part by the desire to wind-up, but not entirely I think -- there is a big chip on the shoulder issue in there somewhere.

Marks out of ten for that post on the wind-up scale : 5 - must do better.

There may be some gap year participants who spend the whole time volunteering. But that's certainly not universal, let alone typical. It's largely a hedonistic 'walk on the wild side' with for some reason a preponderance of south east Asian destinations, and of course our old friend Australia, the most overrated destination imagineable. I know of one person who gave up their job and blew a modest inheritance on such a wasted year because they just had to do it. Another borrowed the money from their parents to and then to their horror they made them pay it back -- more evil, selfish baby boomers having the audacity to try to engender a sense of self-responsibility and appreciation for the value of money in their offspring.

Heavy drinking among the young is a well documented fact and not unsubstantiated nonsense. I did not use the term 'fine dining', I referred to more expensive restaurants -- there is a clear difference between the two.

I have seldom been to Chelsea -- I don't even support them (or to Knightsbridge, Kensington, Belgravia, or St James).

Pensions are a burden on many companies because life expectancy has increased more than predicted and because stock markets are generally performing so poorly. Existing pensioners have contractual guarantees -- they planned their retirements on those assumptions. For those still in work, including many baby boomers companies have deriorated pension benefits precisely so they will not form an unreasonable burden on the working population. One major employer who has singularly failed to do enough on this front is the government. Every generation has had to fund the state pension of the generation above it -- that's the way it's always worked. If the younger generation wants better pensions it needs to be prepared to work for longer and to give up more now -- yes I mean all that binge drinking, week-long stag and hen parties abroad, the latest iPhone as soon as it comes out etc etc.

I'm not sure whether the last paragraph is intended to be ironic, but either way it's lost on me. Younger people do appear more likely to vote Labour because it's seen as more 'cool' to do so. In fact Labour has created a lot of the problems that they are complaining about.

What a lot of the young are actually complaining about is the very poor quality of life in this overcrowded, declining, extremely poorly governed country. The boomers have seen better days and are possibly in denial about how bad it's got. It is dawning on the young how bad it is with no real improvement in sight. The solution for the young is to determine to do something about it and to create a better environment for themselves and their children when they get the chance. Trying to ease the pain with alcohol, excessive consumerism, and blaming their parents' generation for everything will not help.

noodle_doodle

We had "slot telly" from telebank, it had a box on the back you had to put 50p in for 4 hours of telly. So much of that went for rental and the surplus my mum and dad got back just before xmas. It was a disaster when they brought in pound coins as they immediately seized the opportunity to double the price of telly watching.

"Mam, mam, can we watch telly?"

"No you can't, it's run out, and we haven't got a pun coin, burger off and play upstairs"

lessonlearned

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

I did not say we had it hard, I was not complaining. I merely set out the figures to show that the current 20% deposit that the banks are demanding is not that unusual. I explained how we found that £1000 or so in a year by saving hard. I am the first to admit that I didn't particularly enjoy such frugality - a year was quite long enough thank you.

In fact it was the 100% mortgages (and sometimes 125% mortgages of the 90's) that were so unusual and ultimately detrimental. No deposit means you can very quickly slide into negative equity when house prices dip. It's a very dangerous game to play.

2.5 times or 3 times purchase price to salary ratio were of course far more easier than today's ratios. We would all love to see a return to those days. What wasn't so easy was the galloping inflation of the 70's and the crippling interest rates of the 80's.

House buying for the average person is never easy, now or then.

And I was not slating the younger generations. I have sons in their 20's I know exactly how hard it is for them. However my sons are intelligent enough not to lay the blame at previous generations the way the likes of RT. They have more nous than that. RT's rants against Boomers are becoming legendary..

I find it terribly sad that people like RT are so embittered, have such a huge chip on their shoulders and are so eaten up with jealousy that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

Ranting against the Fates solves nothing. Resorting to calling previous generations selfish, greedy is just childish and petulant.

Some boomers may well be self-seeking, selfish and greedy just as some young people may be immature and extravagant.

If I went too far by suggesting that RT and the likes were lazy then I apologise. However, it was said out of frustration and exasperation at RT's often hate filled rants against Boomers.

However, I still maintain that, instead of hate-ranting at the world it would be far better for RT to redirect his or her energies to improve his or her situation.

ash28

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

Amongst the youngsters I've known and know, a traditional gap year is spent swanning around Thailand and Australia - sometimes with New Zealand thrown in. Voluntary work??? Geat real. I don't know a single one who did voluntary work.

I do know one whose gap year consisted of working here in the UK and saving every penny before they started university. Funnily enough they were able to buy a house not long after graduating.

Most of the young people I know are binge drinkers - they don't drink all of the time but boy, when they do, they do. Usually at weekends and they start off on the vodka at home before going out (that's the girls). Have you led a sheltered life or something?

It isn't the boomers staggering around in the street/peeing/vomiting and worse in shop doorways in towns or being toted off to A&E for a stomach pump or to sleep it off - however much you like to think it is.

I used to work outside of town on an industrial estate but I ended up getting a job just off the town centre and what a surprise the first Monday morning brought - I just never realised the carnage after a weekend. And some poor !!!!!! had the job cleaning up the mess.

I did get used to seeing it in the end but it never failed to surprise me.

Graham_Devon

ash28 wrote: »

Most of the young people I know are binge drinkers - they don't drink all of the time but boy, when they do, they do. Usually at weekends and they start off on the vodka at home before going out (that's the girls). Have you led a sheltered life or something?

Honestly, I can't say it any politer than this, but I suggest you find some other young people to aquaint.

These people exist, of course they do. But extrapolating the few people you know across the entire younger generation just isn't fair, and doesn't lead to a decent argument.

And in any case, what the hell was all this about?


How is it honestly really any different from now?

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Honestly, I can't say it any politer than this, but I suggest you find some other young people to aquaint.

These people exist, of course they do. But extrapolating the few people you know across the entire younger generation just isn't fair, and doesn't lead to a decent argument.

And in any case, what the hell was all this about?


How is it honestly really any different from now?

I was about 14 in 1970 so the only swinging I did during the 1960s was in the garden.

Have you been into a town centre on a Monday morning in last few years.

I've known a lot of teenagers, twenty somethings and thirty somethings in my time - from nice families, not hard up, pretty well educated who do this.

I know a lot of young people aren't like this - but a lot are.

If you think binge drinking isn't endemic then you need to open your eyes and go into towns like Reading, Bristol, Newcastle, Manchester etc, etc on a Friday and Saturday night.

Graham_Devon

ash28 wrote: »

I was about 14 in 1970 so the only swinging I did during the 1960s was in the garden.

Have you been into a town centre on a Monday morning in last few years.

I've known a lot of teenagers, twenty somethings and thirty somethings in my time - from nice families, not hard up, pretty well educated who do this.

I know a lot of young people aren't like this - but a lot are.

If you think binge drinking isn't endemic then you need to open your eyes and go into towns like Reading, Bristol, Newcastle, Manchester etc, etc on a Friday and Saturday night.

Binge drinking is a problem. But it's not something you can chastise all the young over.

You were quick to avoid the swinging sixties point. Doesn't matter when you grew up, the point is, IMO, a good one. Howcome we are quick to slam a generation today for having a "good time" but ignore the "good times" of the past?

The 60's is absolutely reknowned for drug and alcohol abuse. They still got on and bought houses.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Binge drinking is a problem. But it's not something you can chastise all the young over.

You were quick to avoid the swinging sixties point. Doesn't matter when you grew up, the point is, IMO, a good one. Howcome we are quick to slam a generation today for having a "good time" but ignore the "good times" of the past?

The 60's is absolutely reknowned for drug and alcohol abuse. They still got on and bought houses.

I will tell you life for the young working class in 60s was nothing like the middle class producers of documentaries would have you believe.

And you still ignore the fact that most people stayed at home with their parents, save and did not live the rock and roll life style. By the time they were the age of most of the binge drinkers they had bought and were living a fairly quite life.

lessonlearned

The 60's may have swung in Carnaby Street and Chelsea High Street but that was about it.

Swinging London was just a media construct to sell Britain to America for a share of the tourist dollar.

Life for most of the rest of Britain in the 60's was not the same at all. It was grim and not just "Ooop North" either. And yes I was a teenager at the time so I do know what I'm talking about.

The Jimi Henrix's, and the Keith Richard's of this world may have spent much of the 60's drugged up to the eyeballs but oddly enough most teenagers didn't.

A few Mods and Rockers popped some pills whilst they went on the rampage on the sea front at Brighton, and a few of the more adventurous hippies smoked a bit of dope and dropped the odd tab of LSD but it was nothing like the drug problems and binge drinking you see today.

If you don't believe us why not pop into any city centre on a Friday or Saturday night - you will get the shock of your life. The A&E departments are chocca with them.

Of course not all young people are binge drinkers just as not all Boomers are having 3 or 4 expensive foreign holidays every year or living it large. However, binge drinking is a very serious problem and one that does seem to be endemic at the moment.

Oddly enough you don't see many seniors binge drinking, snorting cocaine, vomiting in the streets, getting into fights.

And yes many binge drinkers are in their 20's and 30's, an age at which many Boomers were settled and married with a couple of babies.

All most of us saying is - the young cannot spend money like water, p*ssing it up the wall, having flash foreign holidays, all the toys, gadgets and gizmos, designer gear, drugs, ciggies and whatever and still have enough money left to buy a house. Not unless they have the salaries and bonuses of a merchant banker.

It's all about choices and deferring gratification. Of course young people want it all, most young people are in a hurry - that's what being young is all about. They probably can have it all - eventually - just not all at once and not immediately. Some of it will have to wait.

It's about priorities - splashing the cash now and ending up with nothing or making some sacrifices when you are younger so that you can be more comfortable a little later on.

That's what most of the older generations had to do.

Graham_Devon

lessonlearned wrote: »

The Jimi Henrix's, and the Keith Richard's of this world may have spent much of the 60's drugged up to the eyeballs but oddly enough most teenagers didn't.

Right, so why do we assume that it's different today, and the youth of today are all out there binge drinking every week?

There are so many assumptions and holier than thou comments from the older generation here it's hard to see through them all.

Anyway, the point about the iphones was made. I'll tackle this absurb holier than thou attitude some other day. On saying that, it's being displayed with such verocity, I'm not sure I really need to prove that many boomers wish to simply relieve themselves from any part in how todays society is struggling or functioning....it's being displayed with on this thread so succinctly. I'm sure it's possible to wedge ones self up their own rear a little more, but it's getting difficult