Baby Boomers at it Again

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Again you miss the point, in that you can't legitimately tarnish a whole generation because of a minority of nimbys (pictures or no pictures), BTL opportunists, and old boilers who insist on staying in 5 bedroom detached houses on their own. To do so is unintelligent and just detracts from whatever underlying valid points are there to be made.

If I said that I resent all people under 40 because they are lazy, f e c k less, spoilt, whingeing, binge-drinking, shallow, plastic-bashing, immature, obsessive gadget geeks who spend half their working hours poncing about on Facebook, eBay, and Match.com, you would say that I was a prejudiced idiot talking out of my **** to make such a sweeping generalisation -- and you'd be absolutely right. Get the picture ?

The way out of this is for the younger generations to stop whingeing about hard done by they are and to do something about it. A good start would be to stop voting Labour, and thus pulling the country down to its lowest common denominator, slicing the cake more evenly as the cake gets ever-smaller, so that each successive generation is worse off than the one before.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

So it's historic now is it?

I thought it was going forward.

Ok all boomers will have to work a lot less years than you do to reach state pension age. Happy now?

Interestingly for someone my age it is almost 51 years.

Of course those who retired in 2010 or before had to pay 39 years (women) or 44 years (men) NI contributions to be able to receive a full state pension - not the 30 years you and I will benefit from - and that wasn't phased.

So I guess it's swings and roundabouts.

You may have work or wait longer for it but you'll need to contribute significantly less to receive it.

poet123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

All jobs have always had their downsides; when we had 3 young children and my husband was working full time and commuting 50 miles a day his employers wanted him to a Masters Degree. They paid for it, but our situation wasn't ideal at that time.....but he gritted his teeth and did it. It paid off but the gain was far down the line.

Fast forward and he now works from home using tons of electricity to enable the technology, and can claim the princely sum of £3pw tax relief. No material differences there.

Nor was I referring to items to enable prospects to be improved or current jobs to be carried out correctly. I consider that money well spent. I specifically referred to "stuff" fluff, nice to have, but part of a lifestyle choice, a choice we had too but used differently.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

To be fair, I think you'll find the majority of NIMBYs are the housing advantaged of whatever generation. A few photos prove nothing other than perhaps older people are more readily available for day time demonstrations than those at work.

I live in a rural area and have found that objections to planning applications come from every age - you only need to attend a few of the parish planning meetings to see it.

Personally I'm all for building more housing and if we lose a bit of greenbelt land then so be it. People have to live somewhere.

My only stipulation would be that houses are built in areas that are suitable for housing, not on flood plains etc.

Percy1983

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The way out of this is for the younger generations to stop whingeing about hard done by they are and to do something about it. A good start would be to stop voting Labour, and thus pulling the country down to its lowest common denominator, slicing the cake more evenly as the cake gets ever-smaller, so that each successive generation is worse off than the one before.

The problem is it is starting to get out of reach for many, to which what else can they do.

Its hard finding motivation to do the impossible.

GeorgeHowell

Percy1983 wrote: »

The problem is it is starting to get out of reach for many, to which what else can they do.

Its hard finding motivation to do the impossible.

Whingeing that their parents' generation allegedly had it better than they do won't fix it though will it.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Its hard finding motivation to do the impossible.

I remember you telling us about your own terribly impossible situation (what with being born in 1983 and everything) just before you took a whole 9 months to save a deposit.

Percy1983

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Whingeing that their parents' generation allegedly had it better than they do won't fix it though will it.

I agree completely, but people who are in unfair situations do tend to grumble.

I have worked against it and got there, but I will still argue the point it was harder than it was for my parents.

This is a direct comparison as its in the same area and I have a house very similar in size to my parents.

Parents where full time security and part time check out operator to get the house.

We are a full time accountant and full time teaching assistant to get a similar house.

Yes my TV is bigger than theres was at the time and I have a smart phone they didn't, but in relative terms my TV and smart phone cost about the same as there TV and phone line. They could afford upto date technology as can we.

wotsthat wrote: »

I remember you telling us about your own terribly impossible situation (what with being born in 1983 and everything) just before you took a whole 9 months to save a deposit.

Good job I used the phrase 'for many its starting to get out of reach'

It was quite clearly well within reach for me, hence I found it quite easy to find the motivation to make it happen.

GeorgeHowell

Percy1983 wrote: »

I agree completely, but people who are in unfair situations do tend to grumble.

It's unfortunate, rather than unfair, unless you subscribe to the socialist principle that if A has more than B, then you simply take away from A to give to B and level it out. As has been said before, in this country's situation redistribution would be about as effective as rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. That's what Brown, Balls and other tried and look where it's brought us to. It's no accident that after 13 years of Labour we are in the position -- for the first time in history possibly -- where a generation believes that it will not be as well off as the one that preceded it any time soon, if ever.

Grumbling will solve nothing. Defining a problem might be start, but then solutions are required to resolve it. You don't fatten a pig by weighing it.

Graham_Devon

I've given up.

Kudo's to anyone who tries to make any point which doesn't make out young people are all vile bottom feeders.