We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Retired people could work for pensions..
Comments
-
ruggedtoast wrote: »Boomers are better off.
I'm pretty sure plenty of boomers went to polytechnics, and enjoyed large and generous grants.
.
Most went to Polys to get professional technical qualifications on day release from doing a job.
As has been pointed out considerably less people went to Uni (5%?), whilst grants were available to the less well off you had to have the qualifications. Often capable kids wouldn't go because they didn't have anybody in the family that had been and they couldn't afford all the extras on top. They weren't driven to go like they are today.
Suprisingly grants tend only to cover the costs, no different to todays loans. Obviously how a student decides to spend either is up to them. My son still has friends that spend way more than they get in student loans either by parental support or easy student O/Ds. Back in boomer times O/Ds had to be begged and justified. They don't think twice about getting into debt rather than doing without.
BTW kids from poorer backgrounds still get bigger grant v. loan splits and bigger total allowance of both elements than those with wealthier backgrounds.
IMO too many go to Uni. The Uni courses for most courses are too long and they aren't value for money.The basic three years may have been appropriate before the internet/web/elearning etc.
Boomer priorities were not impacted by the consumer driven society we have today. There simply wasn't the array of choice to spend income on. Personal gratification and image wasn't so high on the agenda."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Friend of mines son, is doing just that (but with leaflets) and is doing £3-400 pw week in business now.
Bet that keeps him fit."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Boomers are better off.
These days you need an NVQ Level 4 to get a job hod carrying. I know a lad who has just finished training at college to be a plumber. He will never get to actually be a plumber because he cant finish the NVQ without a placement as an apprentice, which he can't get because there aren't any jobs or apprentice positions even if you offer to work for nothing.
Yet young people are f3ckless and lazy apparently because they are signing on.
No that are not all f3ckless and lazy. There will always some that are though.
Of my sons cohort they are all at Uni or working. Some have good jobs with real apprenticeships, others are working in retail or hotel work. Prospects for some aren't great but a least they are the work ladder and a couple are doing evening courses to help improve their lot.
Has your friend learned any Polish?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I'm not sure what you are getting at. All I am saying it was possible to get a good job without a degree which was a good thing as your chances of getting a degree was very low. I would imagine that the number of people leaving school in the 60s with O levels was not that different to the number of people getting a degree now.
But I had a very good apprenticeship which not only involved good training within the company but time at a technical college in fact the company allowed me to attend college after my apprenticeship finished I'm not sure you would find a company willing to do that now.
what I'm saying is that roughly the same proportion of young people get good jobs now as got good jobs years ago; whether or not they have degrees makes little difference to the relative affluence0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Most went to Polys to get professional technical qualifications on day release from doing a job.
As has been pointed out considerably less people went to Uni (5%?), whilst grants were available to the less well off you had to have the qualifications. Often capable kids wouldn't go because they didn't have anybody in the family that had been and they couldn't afford all the extras on top. They weren't driven to go like they are today.
Suprisingly grants tend only to cover the costs, no different to todays loans. Obviously how a student decides to spend either is up to them. My son still has friends that spend way more than they get in student loans either by parental support or easy student O/Ds. Back in boomer times O/Ds had to be begged and justified. They don't think twice about getting into debt rather than doing without.
BTW kids from poorer backgrounds still get bigger grant v. loan splits and bigger total allowance of both elements than those with wealthier backgrounds.
IMO too many go to Uni. The Uni courses for most courses are too long and they aren't value for money.The basic three years may have been appropriate before the internet/web/elearning etc.
Boomer priorities were not impacted by the consumer driven society we have today. There simply wasn't the array of choice to spend income on. Personal gratification and image wasn't so high on the agenda.
I am pretty sure youngsters havent been selling crass corporatism to themselves.
The modern consumer driven society evolved and matured during the boomer years.
Its is itself a product of boomerism and boomers have been the overall big winners.0 -
Young plumbers are in great demand.grizzly1911 wrote: »Bet that keeps him fit.0 -
what I'm saying is that roughly the same proportion of young people get good jobs now as got good jobs years ago; whether or not they have degrees makes little difference to the relative affluence
Yea I’d say you are about right especially if you compare it with previous recessions. I think something had to be done to give poorer students access to a university education but things seem to have gone to far and jobs that you could get with a couple of O levels you now need a degree for. I wonder how much of the push was driven because a lot of large companies are not prepared to train there own staff.0 -
Yea I’d say you are about right especially if you compare it with previous recessions. I think something had to be done to give poorer students access to a university education but things seem to have gone to far and jobs that you could get with a couple of O levels you now need a degree for. I wonder how much of the push was driven because a lot of large companies are not prepared to train there own staff.
I agree.
I think part of push was to get younsters out of NEET status, to give a pool to massage jobless figures. A bit like flood relief resevoirs.
I'm not so sure about employers not being willing to train their own staff. A lot of roles that now need "degrees" are often practical roles that need further training anyway. In addition many do degrees that are in no way linked to their eventual career.
Just because they have degrees doesn't make them anymore employable.
One thing I do know is that whole industries have grown up around student communities in Uni towns/cities. Without their numbers the jobless total would be much worse. The university degree process is about much more than the indvidual. One reason they are not keen to truncate the courses."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »I am pretty sure youngsters havent been selling crass corporatism to themselves.
The modern consumer driven society evolved and matured during the boomer years.
Its is itself a product of boomerism and boomers have been the overall big winners.
We can only hope that the post boomer generations will soon reject consumerism, sell their computers/iphones/TV etc, give up internet connection and use the money to go and work in some poor country preaching the virtue of having very little.
Boomers will just have to live with the guilt but will be comforted by your selfless sacrifice but please, just do it soon.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I agree.
I think part of push was to get younsters out of NEET status, to give a pool to massage jobless figures. A bit like flood relief resevoirs.
I'm not so sure about employers not being willing to train their own staff. A lot of roles that now need "degrees" are often practical roles that need further training anyway. In addition many do degrees that are in no way linked to their eventual career.
Just because they have degrees doesn't make them anymore employable.
One thing I do know is that whole industries have grown up around student communities in Uni towns/cities. Without their numbers the jobless total would be much worse. The university degree process is about much more than the indvidual. One reason they are not keen to truncate the courses.
A lot of education funded by large companies was complementary to the basic training to enable apprentice to perform job. I personally had very good practical training provided by company itself but I also went to technical college and contrary to what is though a lot of courses were very academic.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards