Rich babyboomers behaving like the nobility in the peasants revolt...

neverdespairgirl

GhIFA wrote: »

Like I said, I'm a little rusty!

I'm pretty rusty myself, I've not studied the period much, just read about it.

I know that Wat Tyler, the leader of the lot from Kent who camped on Blackheath, very specifically told his followers not to loot in any way, and I think the Essex lot were told the same. There was some looting in London, of course, when the Archbishop was dragged out of the Tower and executed, and most famously, John of Gaunt's Savoy Palace was burned down.

But I think that some of that was the London mob joining in, and IIRC, the rebels themselves hanged some of their own lot who were caught looting, the idea of the Savoy was that it should be burned, to show contempt for wealth and John of Gaunt, not looted. So his tapestries were burned, his silver and gold crushed and chucked in the fire, etc, it wasn't just nicked.

There was also an anti-immigrant move - once the London gates had been opened to the rebels, there were lots of attacks on the houses of foreigners, particularly Flemmings, probably by London weavers who didn't like hte competition. And prisons were broken open, and prisoners released.

Of course, the political and social traumas of the Black Death were important, but the most immediate cause was the failing war in France - it had been very popular when there were big battles and successful looting (Crecy, Poitiers) but after the death of Edward III, things continued downhill, and Parliament had to keep raising taxes to pay for the Hundred Years War. It was when they hit on the bright idea of hte Poll Tax that it really went wrong - the first Poll Tax, a few years before 1381, was different for different classes - so Lords paid X, merchants Y, landowners different amounts depending on how much land, peasants almost nothing.

The second one didn't go that well either, but it was the third (where every adult, I think that meant 14+, had to pay the same 1 shilling per head) was where the trouble really started. 1 shilling was sod all to merchants or large landowners, but an absolute fortune to the agricultural labourer. I remember reading somewhere that 65% of the population in Kent just "vanished", as they didn't register to pay the poll tax.

It was the attempts, then to enforce it in 1381 that sparked the trouble.

There was also the background of pre-reformation ideas - Wycliffe and his ilk, wanting the Bible in English and reform of monasteries and the upper echelons of the Church, and John Ball, the hedge priest, marched with Wat Tyler and Co, leading to the rebels chanting his phrase, "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?" and "With King Richard and the true commons of England!"

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Probably, but it was a business visit, not leisure

You aren't still going? It really doesn't seem like a wise idea ATM.

IveSeenTheLight

quantic wrote: »

I'm just saying that, it takes a lot of discipline to motivate yourself to save for 3 years, every single month, there needs to be a decent carrot at the end, spurring you on.

This is not different to the historical norm.
In the 70's my in-laws practically had to beg their Building Society Manager for a mortgage. At one point, after years of saving, my F-I-L threatened to remove all savings from the BS if they were not able to offer a mortgage.

quantic wrote: »

It used to be; stick in at school, get a degree, get a job, work hard, get a nice house and stable future.

It still can be.
I know many managers screaming out for graduates.

It used to be that students had to apply for companies with many other hopefulls and hope they achieved the grades they needed.

Now I am seeing that managers are securing graduates whilst going through University / prior to starting through sponsorship in order to line up and tie in the the graduates for work post graduation

quantic wrote: »

If the youth of today do that, they are likely going to be faced with significant student debt, crappy part time jobs for the best part of their 20's - if they are lucky, once they finally manage to save up and buy a place it will likely be an ex council in a rough area or a tiny new build which is overpriced and has windows the size of a letter box.

That's if they are lucky! Its not really inspiring stuff is it?

Not very positive mindset is it.
My brother recently graduated with no debt.
He worked throughout his student life part time and gained valuable experience and salary out of term with companies broadening his Engineering knowledge.

Like in most things, you can budget and keep debts to a minimum if you put your mind to it.
If your mindset is to party and spend student loans irresponsibly then yes, you can rack-up huge debts

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You aren't still going? It really doesn't seem like a wise idea ATM.

Not at the moment, travel is banned by my company, however once this is raised, I might be on the next flight.

Often (as it was after the revolution in 2011), its when we need to provide additional focus to get operations started up again whilst also acting under an increased security umbrella.

vivatifosi

quantic wrote: »

It doesn't exactly inspire the youth of today to save when they are probably going to be buying an ex council house because its all they can get a mortgage on - off someone who didn't earn it and paid half for it.

I agree that the housing market is a mess. I don't think many would disagree with that. I've been looking for facts and peer reviewed journals on Right to Buy to see what the impact of the programme was. Most roads lead to the same book: The Right to Buy by Jones and Murie. A synopsis of the book is here:
http://www.cre.org/memberdata/pdfs/31_3_Right_to_Buy.pdf

Some of it was not particularly surprising, for example that the best stock sold first and the worst stock remained in the system.

What did surprise me though was the comment that RTB happened in 1980 and that those who purchased most were dual income households over 45 years of age, or near retirement. In other words, they were - for the most part - never baby boomers in the first place.

This also leads me to think that many of these houses will have changed hands several times since a 1980s sale. Therefore you and your friends would not be enabling those who bought them to profit, rather you would be buying off people for the most part had themselves bought an ex-council house. As someone who bought at the height of a previous housing boom (1988), I feel for FTBs too.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I find it laughable to see the words uprising and revolt in this post.

Having operations, mobilising people and having worked in Egypt in the last couple of years (also was planned to go myself this month), the idea of an uprising or revolt in the UK does not appear to have the same context.

It may appear that those discussing uprising or revolts in the UK, clearly do not have any knowledge or understanding of how privileged they are when compared to many issues around the world.

Many people throughout the world would happily accept the position of the so called underprivileged / younger generations expectations

I'd suggest the London riots were an uprising and revolt. Didn't take that much planning! Took us all by surprise.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd suggest the London riots were an uprising and revolt. Didn't take that much planning! Took us all by surprise.

I understand, however as I said, "in context"

the idea of an uprising or revolt in the UK does not appear to have the same context

Incidentally, what was the outcome of the "peasants" riots in London.
did they achieve their outcome?
Was there any repercussions?

Would many of those involved think twice given the consequences witnessed?

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Incidentally, what was the outcome of the "peasants" riots in London.
did they achieve their outcome?
Was there any repercussions?

Would many of those involved think twice given the consequences witnessed?

In 1381?

It actually turned out OK - most were pardoned, except the ringleaders and those who targeted the high-ups.

The Royal Council did get rid of some of its less popular members, and decided to scale down the French wars, so they didn't have to raise so much in taxes.

Percy1983

quantic wrote: »

I'm in my 20's, on one hand I feel the pain of my generation, I really do.

I find the fact that many older generations have gained so much by doing so little shocking - my parents included. I also find it appalling how so many people got rich off the right to buy scheme, many of which who did not deserve or work for a penny of it.

That said, with many of the people I know who can't buy houses - they earn good money, better than me, it's purely because they are not prepared to maintain and sustain a level of savings and cant seem to do without buying crap. Again a generalisation but I can only speak from my personal experience.

It doesn't exactly inspire the youth of today to save when they are probably going to be buying an ex council house because its all they can get a mortgage on - off someone who didn't earn it and paid half for it.

So when I think about it - can I really blame them for just wanting to keep their cushy lifestyle instead...

I will say this is the problem, its not so much impossible but knowing you have to work harder for less is rather demotivating.

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I guess the baby boomer generation sit on a lot of wealth. But they will ultimately release it, either via inheritance or spending on social care, high class escorts and luxury holidays. This will either directly increase the wealth of younger people(via asset transfers) or indirectly via higher wages for services.

The problem with this is the transfer is rather late in life and very uneven.

ie, my parents are still going strong yet if I needed inheritance to buy a house I would still be waiting.

Secondly what if you parents have nothing to give, why should you have a massive disadvantage due to your parents bad decisions/misfortune?

If house prices (being one of the big problems) where less those who inhertit a house would still have have a free house, but less money if they sell it, meanwhile housing would still be affordable for those who started with nothing and work hard.

I will say the effects aren't all to bad up north, prices never got as high and they crashed much further in the crash, but if the population keeps growing the problems the south see will eventually be nationwide.

N1AK

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Many people throughout the world would happily accept the position of the so called underprivileged / younger generations expectations

Brilliant so the wealth can be redistributed from the older/wealthier individuals and they won't mind right?...

Oh wait, you mean that the young should put up with what they've got so that their elders don't have to share