Baby Boomers at it Again

olly300

poet123 wrote: »

You forget though that as parents we see the reality of many twentysomethings lives close up. I know that they do buy stuff that when we were their age we wouldn't have considered paying such a price for, if it was weighed against a house deposit.

I am not saying who is right or wrong, just that we all make choices on what to with with disposable income and we also have to take the consequences of those choices.

Stuff they buy now didn't exist when you were young and it's much easier to move house and stay connected with a laptop, smartphone and a kindle than with a desktop PC and lots of boxes of books.

Also a smartphone isn't going to prevent you saving for a deposit if you buy smartphone and don't go on holiday.

However not having a smartphone can seriously dent your job opportunities if an employer can't reach you, or you cannot answer your emails quickly.

Employers now cheekily expect those in lots of jobs to use their own phones for keeping in contact.

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The school leaving age may well be rising to 18.

But it's not currently. You have left out 25+ years of school leavers who left at 16 too who will have to work longer.

And what about all the men and women who retired at 60-62 who you have left out?

I have to commend the reliance of massaging the figures to suit though!

Agreed all sides do it.

I also wouldn't count on the retirement ages of anyone under 45 staying the same.

The government recently screwed those in their mid to late-40s by raising their retirement age to 67.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can tell you what the main gripes are, if you are willing to listen?!

1. Protectionism. I.e. campaigning againsts new builds as it will ruin views and countryside....from people who live in buildings which have ruined the countryside. Look at any NIMBY march, the MAJORITY are of boomer age. There will be some younger green / rich types, sure, but the majority....



2. BTL. Now, while we need BTL's, we don't need a vast amount of the boomer generation (and fact staes it IS the babyboomer generation who make up the majority of those undertaking BTL) literally creaming it off all and sundry below them.

3. Over occupation. Not neccesarily babyboomers here, but all those who simply refuse to move from "their houses" even though they are not theirs as it's their home. MOVE ON. You've had your family there and benefitted from the grace of the welfare system, give someone else a chance.

4. Protectionism pover pensions and working ages. Why is the babyboomer generation exempt from most of the changes to pensions and working hours? Howcome a small group of boomer women found it so easy to get the government to change the rules in order that they would receive a higher pension, for less work? Such a minority was listened to.

Want more? I could go on. I feel they are fair reasonings.

1 That's just a prejudicial generalisation and one picture proves nothing. Don't underestimate the tree-huggers when it comes to resisting development. And not all boomers are nimbys by any means. Most recognise the need but just don't want a free for all whereby wide-boy developers get all their own way to nobody's real benefit except their own. As far as we know planning rules are to be relaxed so let's see where that takes us.

2 A lot have caught a cold with BTL and nobody has any sympathy. I don't know any boomer who has bought to let, and again it's not a widespread thing and just a prejudicial attitude to lay this on a whole generation because of a minority.

3. Ridiculous. You might like to live in some sort of statist nightmare where people are forcibly removed form their own property but I'm sure most people don't want that, not even the younger generations. And again this is a prejudice levelled at everyone because of a minority. A lot of retirees do down-size voluntarily, I know a number who have done so. And in the case of those who stay put in a property bigger than they need it's often because they are preoccupied with leaving the biggest possible legacy to their offspring and see that as the best way of protecting it from inflation.

4. Don't agree. The pension age changes will affect many boomers. Private pensions have been decimated due to deliberate Labour policy and this is already affecting many boomers and will affect more to come.

And what about when it works the other way -- negative real interest rates lasting over several years with no end in sight. Many with low pensions -- and despite what you say there are many -- are having their supplemental source of income cut to the bone, the quid pro quo being low mortgage rates which predominantly benefits the younger.

The use of frequent capitals in your post is the give away that it is not based primarily on reasoning, but on anger and resentment.

If things carry on as they are in this country -- we stay in the ruinous EU, we allow an increasing numbers of passengers on welfare, we keep bringing in more and more immigrants etc -- then successive generations will be worse of than the one before them, and the current younger generation are at risk of receiving the same degree of resentment from some of their children. Redistribution is not the answer, it never is and it's just a downward spiral The country has to become more competitive, the cake has to get bigger.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Want more? I could go on. I feel they are fair reasonings.

Do you think you'll be different once you've grasped that compounding combined with time lead to an increase in wealth?

Even before boomers I think it was middle-aged to old people that ran the country, objected to views being spoilt etc.

It'll be the same in 20 years time - you'll be getting a bit boring moaning about hard done to you are when just about everyone in a position of influence is a post-boomer.

Of course you'll be blaming someone else by then.

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

1 That's just a prejudicial generalisation and one picture proves nothing. Don't underestimate the tree-huggers when it comes to resisting development. And not all boomers are nimbys by any means. Most recognise the need but just don't want a free for all whereby wide-boy developers get all their own way to nobody's real benefit except their own. As far as we know planning rules are to be relaxed so let's see where that takes us.

2 A lot have caught a cold with BTL and nobody has any sympathy. I don't know any boomer who has bought to let, and again it's not a widespread thing and just a prejudicial attitude to lay this on a whole generation because of a minority.

3. Ridiculous. You might like to live in some sort of statist nightmare where people are forcibly removed form their own property but I'm sure most people don't want that, not even the younger generations. And again this is a prejudice levelled at everyone because of a minority. A lot of retirees do down-size voluntarily, I know a number who have done so. And in the case of those who stay put in a property bigger than they need it's often because they are preoccupied with leaving the biggest possible legacy to their offspring and see that as the best way of protecting it from inflation.

4. Don't agree. The pension age changes will affect many boomers. Private pensions have been decimated due to deliberate Labour policy and this is already affecting many boomers and will affect more to come.

And what about when it works the other way -- negative real interest rates lasting over several years with no end in sight. Many with low pensions -- and despite what you say there are many -- are having their supplemental source of income cut to the bone, the quid pro quo being low mortgage rates which predominantly benefits the younger.

The use of frequent capitals in your post is the give away that it is not based primarily on reasoning, but on anger and resentment.

If things carry on as they are in this country -- we stay in the ruinous EU, we allow an increasing numbers of passengers on welfare, we keep bringing in more and more immigrants etc -- then successive generations will be worse of than the one before them, and the current younger generation are at risk of receiving the same degree of resentment from some of their children. Redistribution is not the answer, it never is and it's just a downward spiral The country has to become more competitive, the cake has to get bigger.

1. Have a look for yourself then. Sure you'll find some eco warriors in there. You'll also find the good old socialists. I did say you will find these people though. Just said the majority will be boomers. I don't know how many pictures you'd like me to post?

2. Just because you don't know one, it doesn't changed fact.

3. I am obviously talking about social housing (by stating "not theirs"), not owner occupier, which you have chosen to reference.

4. It's no surprise you don't agree.

Until you are ready to open your eyes to the problem, you'll of course just beleieve were all just whinging about nothing and everything is the same. I can't change that, especially if you won't let yourself.

poet123

olly300 wrote: »

Stuff they buy now didn't exist when you were young and it's much easier to move house and stay connected with a laptop, smartphone and a kindle than with a desktop PC and lots of boxes of books.

Also a smartphone isn't going to prevent you saving for a deposit if you buy smartphone and don't go on holiday.

However not having a smartphone can seriously dent your job opportunities if an employer can't reach you, or you cannot answer your emails quickly.

Employers now cheekily expect those in lots of jobs to use their own phones for keeping in contact.

There was still "stuff" to buy, places to see, when we were looking to move out and buy a house!!;) I am only just over 50!! Clearly it was not the same stuff but it was comparable in price, but we made a choice. The choice was that we would save and buy a house and then buy stuff and go places, which is what we did.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The school leaving age may well be rising to 18.

But it's not currently. You have left out 25+ years of school leavers who left at 16 too who will have to work longer.

And what about all the men and women who retired at 60-62 who you have left out?

I have to commend the reliance of massaging the figures to suit though!

Why thank you GD. You are giving credit where none is due.

I didn't miss out anyone - if you are under 32 and left school at 16 you will work for 52 years as I said in my original post. I did say 50 or 52 years.

No men have reached state retirement age before the age of 65 - it was women. There are still women who will retire before the age of 65 as the change is phased in over a number of years.

I think the government made a concession for the 330k women worst affected.

Graham_Devon

poet123 wrote: »

There was still "stuff" to buy, places to see, when we were looking to move out and buy a house!!;) I am only just over 50!! Clearly it was not the same stuff but it was comparable in price, but we made a choice. The choice was that we would save and buy a house and then buy stuff and go places, which is what we did.

Yes, but what it seems many expect others to do is progress in their career, get better jobs, both work to save for a deposit....BUT at the very same time, they expect us NOT to buy the tools that best enables us to do that.

I'd love it if we could all get better jobs within 2-3 miles of our house, without looking on the net, without having a phone, and merely popping into the job centre.

My employer expects me to have a mobile, a car, and internet access (to work from home). NONE of this is paid for by the business. The only part thats paid for is mileage expenses when I'm required to go elsewhere.

Without those, I wouldn't be suitable for the job....they don't have to pay....firstly, its not expected, and secondly, someone else will quite happy to provide all that. I've often thought of the electric I use at home in order to fulfill the job, but asking for that wouldn't go down well. The amount of stuff I need to run is increasing though. Not moaning at all, just saying the way it is. It really does seem at the moment many are having to give more and more to stay static....while being told were vile creatures wanting everything on a plate. Were all just doing our best, competing in a new world, a world where you are now supposed to be grateful for a job and give more of your personal life and posessions to the job.

Our H&S advisor suggested we now have to service our cars on time and have proof (DIY won't count), and have a check every 6 months to cover the employer for health and safety when carrying out business mileage. I.e. we could claim against the employer if we have an accident in our own cars due to bad maintenance. Theres no way any single one of us will do that at the mometn....but it's coming...just need more people succesfully suing their companies, and that will be a personal expense again.

Graham_Devon

ash28 wrote: »

Why thank you GD. You are giving credit where none is due.

I didn't miss out anyone - if you are under 32 and left school at 16 you will work for 52 years as I said in my original post. I did say 50 or 52 years.

No men have reached state retirement age before the age of 65 - it was women. There are still women who will retire before the age of 65 as the change is phased in over a number of years.

I think the government made a concession for the 330k women worst affected.

Yer, so 52 years for us lot.

46 for women which has just ceased, and 49 for men which has just ceased.

How is 52 not more than 46 & 49?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My employer expects me to have a mobile, a car, and internet access (to work from home). NONE of this is paid for by the business. The only part thats paid for is mileage expenses when I'm required to go elsewhere.

Without those, I wouldn't be suitable for the job....they don't have to pay....firstly, its not expected, and secondly, someone else will quite happy to provide all that. I've often thought of the electric I use at home in order to fulfill the job, but asking for that wouldn't go down well. The amount of stuff I need to run is increasing though. Not moaning at all, just saying the way it is. It really does seem at the moment many are having to give more and more to stay static....while being told were vile creatures wanting everything on a plate. Were all just doing our best, competing in a new world, a world where you are now supposed to be grateful for a job and give more of your personal life and posessions to the job.

Our H&S advisor suggested we now have to service our cars on time and have proof (DIY won't count), and have a check every 6 months to cover the employer for health and safety when carrying out business mileage. I.e. we could claim against the employer if we have an accident in our own cars due to bad maintenance. Theres no way any single one of us will do that at the mometn....but it's coming...just need more people succesfully suing their companies, and that will be a personal expense again.

Sounds like you've gone past the point where it's no longer beneficial to offer your services.

Presumably you aren't part of a bonded labour scheme and are free to offer your services to other, more grateful, employers.

The biggest influence on your own outcome is yourself - not your date of birth.