Retired people could work for pensions..

Jennifer_Jane

CLAPTON wrote: »

I speak very slowly so if you think about it for the next 30 years, you might learn something.

Let's suppose you borrow money and spend it on improving infrastructure, education, health and preserving the skills base so that everyone can have a better life in the future.

Your immediate standard of living is not improved in any way at all but the future generations i.e. your kids and their kids will benefit massively.

So in 20 years time the benefits will come it and most rational people with celebrate the increased wealth and increased life span.

As in fact I do; as life for my children is massively better than my life at a similar age although we did invent sex.

So if you look at the post war world, right up to today, any rational person will see an improved lifestyle, infrastructure and lifespan.
Ok the banks were stupid enough to 'invest' massive amounts of money in US property and real estate all over Europe that was completely mad; but we are still massively better off that we were after the last war.


Now you may well wish for a UK without central heating, few cars, no foreign holidays, only 5% at Uni, poor housing, poor health services, expensive clothing but then you are in a massive minority.

Have you ever bothered to speak to your parents and grandparents about life in the past?

And there was food rationing for the first 7 years of my life, although it was diminishing for the last couple of years; and I'm unsure about when it started and stopped, but I remember the "CC" (Clothing coupon) symbol in my clothes too.

PaulF81

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

And there was food rationing for the first 7 years of my life, although it was diminishing for the last couple of years; and I'm unsure about when it started and stopped, but I remember the "CC" (Clothing coupon) symbol in my clothes too.

There a quite a few obese people on benefits that could do with bringing rationing back.

ruggedtoast

Was it better to be a middle income person in the 70s or a low income person now?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Was it better to be a middle income person in the 70s or a low income person now?

materially probably one is better off as a low income person now
however it depends upon the politics of envy, how low is low, family situation, where you live etc

StevieJ

Dunroamin wrote: »

But it wasn't voluntary, which is the point I was making.

I said it was contributory not voluntary, the contracted out portion of your private pension is not voluntary either?

I thought the pension in excess of the basic pension (serps etc) was contributory i.e. similar to a private pension?

CRISPIANNE3

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I did retire for eight years and went to live in Spain, but when we came back to the UK I signed on for the petsitting. Entirely my choice!

Now thats a brilliant idea. We love animals and have two cats of our own.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

materially probably one is better off as a low income person now
however it depends upon the politics of envy, how low is low, family situation, where you live etc

Well, say we compare someone who's unemployed and on state benefits now and then?

The point I am trying to get at is that in many ways the world is a more comfortable place now than it was in the 70s. Technology and infrastructure have marched on and its all cheaper than it was, so in a sense you get more for less money.

I grew up in an unmodernised victorian house and then an unmodernised 1960s build house (because we were poor) and I remember all too well what its like crouching over a coal fire on a freezing morning trying to get it to light, or faffing about with gas fires and paraffin heaters, and how amazing it was visiting other people's houses who could change the temperature of the whole house by turning a dial.

Most people (thankfully) take this for granted these days, whereas it was unusual a few decades ago. Nevertheless, on paper those people were better off financially, and it is that "on paper" legacy that is denying people today decent full time work, affordable secure housing, and affordable education. We are also the first generation who are going to work longer for less than the one before us.

Herein lies the dichotomy of this debate.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well, say we compare someone who's unemployed and on state benefits now and then?

The point I am trying to get at is that in many ways the world is a more comfortable place now than it was in the 70s. Technology and infrastructure have marched on and its all cheaper than it was, so in a sense you get more for less money.

I grew up in an unmodernised victorian house and then an unmodernised 1960s build house (because we were poor) and I remember all too well what its like crouching over a coal fire on a freezing morning trying to get it to light, or faffing about with gas fires and paraffin heaters, and how amazing it was visiting other people's houses who could change the temperature of the whole house by turning a dial.

Most people (thankfully) take this for granted these days, whereas it was unusual a few decades ago. Nevertheless, on paper those people were better off financially, and it is that "on paper" legacy that is denying people today decent full time work, affordable secure housing, and affordable education. We are also the first generation who are going to work longer for less than the one before us.

Herein lies the dichotomy of this debate.

I'm not sure what you are on about since 1970 wage inflation has been almost twice RPI so people are better off. Of course that hinges on them getting a good job and that is where the problem lies.

　

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well, say we compare someone who's unemployed and on state benefits now and then?

The point I am trying to get at is that in many ways the world is a more comfortable place now than it was in the 70s. Technology and infrastructure have marched on and its all cheaper than it was, so in a sense you get more for less money.

I grew up in an unmodernised victorian house and then an unmodernised 1960s build house (because we were poor) and I remember all too well what its like crouching over a coal fire on a freezing morning trying to get it to light, or faffing about with gas fires and paraffin heaters, and how amazing it was visiting other people's houses who could change the temperature of the whole house by turning a dial.

Most people (thankfully) take this for granted these days, whereas it was unusual a few decades ago. Nevertheless, on paper those people were better off financially, and it is that "on paper" legacy that is denying people today decent full time work, affordable secure housing, and affordable education. We are also the first generation who are going to work longer for less than the one before us.

Herein lies the dichotomy of this debate.

struggling to understand what you are saying.

all people have access to affordable education
housing is a problem now but it was even worse in the 70s
whilst at this particular time just after a recession, things may be a little bad, but lets remind ourselve that unemployment is lower now that in the 80s and the standard of living much higher for all the people.

basically it is must must better now than the 70s for virtually everyone.

coastline

CLAPTON wrote: »

struggling to understand what you are saying.

all people have access to affordable education
housing is a problem now but it was even worse in the 70s
whilst at this particular time just after a recession, things may be a little bad, but lets remind ourselve that unemployment is lower now that in the 80s and the standard of living much higher for all the people.

basically it is must must better now than the 70s for virtually everyone.

I know people now who are 55yo that had no central heating...tin bath ...and toilet down the back yard...its never been that easy for folk..
You can see it now if growth returns to normal the government in power will begin to borrow more and add it to the national debt..

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47530000/gif/_47530170_uk_budget2010_466x345.gif