Bishop Bashes Boomers

Percy1983

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Why should a woman currently aged 62 get a state pension from the age of 60 while a woman currently aged 56 has to wait until 66

It ain't fair and life sometimes sucks - you have to deal with it!

I am dealing with it, doesn't mean I can't spot injustice and argue the case.

Conrad

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am not complaining about the system I have moved onto its still a great deal and is worth the lessor salary to get it, my point is why should a boomer get an extra 5 years in the better scheme than me purely because they where born before me?

In that case why should anything ever change as someone will always be a looser from it. This is what I mean by this peculiar sense of entitlement us Brits have. No disrespect percy but it's just tough, the world changes, no doubt you've won in other ways like being born in one of the richest nations on Earth and having enjoyed free money HPI. Moaning about the pension thing make people sound a bit spoilt.:D

I will similarly be a looser from this but I just accept the world changes and we have to cut our cloth. Suggesting it's an injustice is way off beam mate.

StevieJ

Conrad wrote: »

In that case why should anything ever change as someone will always be a looser from it. This is what I mean by this peculiar sense of entitlement us Brits have. No disrespect percy but it's just tough, the world changes, no doubt you've won in other ways like being born in one of the richest nations on Earth and having enjoyed free money HPI. Moaning about the pension thing make people sound a bit spoilt.:D

I will similarly be a looser from this but I just accept the world changes and we have to cut our cloth. Suggesting it's an injustice is way off beam mate.

What was it that Wilde said about doing something once and then twice

StevieJ

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am not complaining about the system I have moved onto its still a great deal and is worth the lessor salary to get it, my point is why should a boomer get an extra 5 years in the better scheme than me purely because they where born before me?

Lesser salary compared to what?

Percy1983

Conrad wrote: »

In that case why should anything ever change as someone will always be a looser from it. This is what I mean by this peculiar sense of entitlement us Brits have. No disrespect percy but it's just tough, the world changes, no doubt you've won in other ways like being born in one of the richest nations on Earth and having enjoyed free money HPI. Moaning about the pension thing make people sound a bit spoilt.:D

I will similarly be a looser from this but I just accept the world changes and we have to cut our cloth. Suggesting it's an injustice is way off beam mate.

My point is the change could be done in a fair way, everybody gets cut off at the same date, I accept change hence why I am not complaining about being moved from final salary to average.

StevieJ wrote: »

Lesser salary compared to what?

Similar jobs in the private sector.

Graham_Devon

roddydogs wrote: »

Yes but we didnt have computers, mobiles, flat screens, holidays abroad till much later in life than the moaners, and everything was much dearer in real terms than now (except houses) 23" colour tv in 1975=£230, 4 channels, no remote, (about 5 weeks average wage then) washing m/c about the same, cars, holidays abroad, clothes were much dearer in real terms then, oh and also life expectancy is now longer. Would you REALLY swap places.?

Right, and I doubt your parent even HAD a TV, or a washing machine, or an iron....

I don't really get what your point is here.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Considering 4 weeks rent costs about 5 weeks average wage now, I don't think you were too badly off.

I think if its a choice between being able to afford a tv and being able to afford somewhere to live most people would happily choose the latter.

This is the common misperception with boomers, you all seem to assume that having smart phones and gadgets makes young people much happier than they actually do.

And as far as this paradigm goes, I know far more boomers toting around expensive iPads in fancy leather cases than I do younger people. As a generation you have far more money than anyone else does, largely due to young people having to pay you rent to exist in places you occupied for nothing.

Not bad but average monthly rent is less than half average monthly take home pay.

shortchanged_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, and I doubt your parent even HAD a TV, or a washing machine, or an iron....

I don't really get what your point is here.

I'm actually led to believe that Henry VIII didn't have a TV and he was very, very wealthy.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, and I doubt your parent even HAD a TV, or a washing machine, or an iron....

I don't really get what your point is here.

I expect it's that the shrill baby boomer bashers have a better standard of living than the boomers themselves but are maybe lacking some self-awareness.

shortchanged wrote: »

I'm actually led to believe that Henry VIII didn't have a TV and he was very, very wealthy.

Just shows what a few centuries of growth can to to standards of living.

I think Henry had a fall from a horse at a young age and lived with an ulcerated leg for the rest of his life. Today the poorest person would be transported to A&E, get it sorted and would complain about waiting for 3 hours.

JencParker

ukcarper wrote: »

Not bad but average monthly rent is less than half average monthly take home pay.

Except in London and the SE!