A desperate cry of anguish for "Boomer Rage"

System

Hooloovoo wrote: »

I have a man crush on LM. I don't think I've ever read a post I disagree with. And if I'm even half as comfortable in retirement as he is I'll be happy.

Large gin and tonics all round!

Ha, same, I have the same opinions but can't get them into text anything like as well.

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The more you bleat on about this, the more it exposes what a "myth" this boomer thing is, and how you don't understand real life.

The first thing you fail to grasp, it seems, is that our economy goes in cycles. It has generally shown upward improvement, but interspersed with several recessions.

If you can't understand that, I feel sorry for you. But in order to move on, you need to understand it, because you need to understand that most boomers, too, started economic life in the 70's when things were much worse. Strikes. Double Dip. Unbelievable inflation. Oil crisis. Increasing unemployment...

Yes it got better for us. Yes it will get better for today's 18-24 year olds.

The second thing you fail to understand is that (unlike today's 18-24 year olds) we looked back at our pre-war born parents and noticed that however "tough" it was for us, they had perhaps had it tougher. Maybe that's why we 'accepted' our miserable lot without too much whinging. The prospect of a 12 year old banger by age 28 was better than the prospect of never owning a car.

In contrast, today's 18-24 year olds look back at their parents who (research has shown) had a staggering 50%/70% higher real terms standard of living than did boomers (for the first 20 or so years of working life).

So isn't it a bit predictable that this is a different benchmark, and has (it seems) planted thoughts into today's youngsters that they are never going to thrive - especially when they see how much their parents earned - but how little they have left to show for it after an orgy of spending?

There are absolutely no reasons whatsoever why today's 22 year old is going to be worse off - all round - than a 22 year old in 1972 [as I was] just starting economic life. No reason whatsoever. In fact every reason to believe he will have far more opportunities, wealth, and comfort than did my generation. And a better state pension in all probability.

Rather ironically, this could also have been true for the generation in between. And maybe for some it will be true over a working lifetime.

Which brings me to the third and final thing you seem to be ignoring....

None of us has any control over the huge range of economic climate(s) over a 40 year working lifetime. It is an undeniable fact that every 40 year period historically shows a massive improvement in economic standards/wealth than the previous 40 year period.

Hence there is only one thing, very broadly, that is going to make any generation poorer than the previous one throughout his/her economic life is personal behaviour.

It really is that simple.

Well if you had spent less time striking and voting in Labour governments the 70s would probably have been a nicer time.

Economies are cyclical, oh really? Well the universe is probably cyclical too but that also isnt going to help many young people whose working life is four or five decades. A lot shorter than the time it will take to pay off the debts that have been accrued to benefit older voters.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well if you had spent less time striking and voting in Labour governments the 70s would probably have been a nicer time.

Economies are cyclical, oh really? Well the universe is probably cyclical too but that also isnt going to help many young people whose working life is four or five decades. A lot shorter than the time it will take to pay off the debts that have been accrued to benefit older voters.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The more you bleat on about this, the more it exposes what a "myth" this boomer thing is, and how you don't understand real life.

I rest my case, M'lud.

wotsthat

Hooloovoo wrote: »

I have a man crush on LM. I don't think I've ever read a post I disagree with. And if I'm even half as comfortable in retirement as he is I'll be happy.

Large gin and tonics all round!

It's like a Loughton Monkey bromantic love in today!

My kids are sick and tired of hearing 'my' advice about how they should budget to live on less than they earn, save the rest and get an offset mortgage.

wotsthat

the_flying_pig wrote: »

"no reason whatsoever".

oh, ok, all the fuss must be about nothing then. my bad.

There's no guarantee that each generation will be better off than the previous generation and history confirms this.

We're not having a bad run though. I fully expect that the current 18-24 year olds will be better off than their parents who, in turn, will be better off than theirs.

At the very worst we'll have the wealthiest ever generation followed by the second wealthiest generation - hardly the end of the world.

Loughton_Monkey

wotsthat wrote: »

It's like a Loughton Monkey bromantic love in today!

My kids are sick and tired of hearing 'my' advice about how they should budget to live on less than they earn, save the rest and get an offset mortgage.

Tell them it's not just you telling them. Stress that it's Loughton Monkey telling them. You'll get less argument.

Conrad

the_flying_pig wrote: »

"no reason whatsoever".

oh, ok, all the fuss must be about nothing then. my bad.

People of your particular mind-set will still be saying as you do a million years from now, tis just the way of things.


Who cares if there is not always an even handed deck dealt to every following generation, where is it written such things are vital for life?


Just do your best and make a fist of things, stop moaning about whether one generation might in the grand scheme end up 20% better off than the next.


Anyway, the non boomers are going to inherit boomer wealth in the main.




There's tens of thousands of Syrian kids seen their parents murdered and mutilated, their homes destroyed and right now they face true uncertainty, hungry and cold. It is a bit odd how some folk expend so much energy whinging about relative wealth, in fact it's damn well spoilt.

ruggedtoast

British Boomers are the biggest net recipients of real wealth the nation has ever seen, or ever will see based on current projections.

It is ironic that the generations before the boomers made so many sacrifices for them, but the Boomer generations give so very grudgingly to the young generations that they are stewarding.

Something went wrong somewhere.

BillJones

ruggedtoast wrote: »

British Boomers are the biggest net recipients of real wealth the nation has ever seen, or ever will see based on current projections.

It is ironic that the generations before the boomers made so many sacrifices for them, but the Boomer generations give so very grudgingly to the young generations that they are stewarding.

Something went wrong somewhere.

It seems pretty peachy from where I'm sitting. I earn vastly more than members of my class could have in the boomer generation, and have access to jobs, travel, food and housing than they ever did.

If you yourself are struggling then instead of being bitter, look at what you can do differently.

The UK is still a land of vast opportunity. To fail here takes some kind of special effort.

ruggedtoast

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/05/baby-boomers-voting-muscle

...for the children of the baby boomers, governments offer only misery. Higher education minister David Willetts has made it clear that students' fees are going to go up. A lot. Baby boomers, born between 1945 and 1955, paid no fees at all when they were students in the free and carefree 60s.

Today, because people are living longer, baby boomers are a much more powerful political force than 55- to 65-year-olds have ever been before. And they are exercising their political muscle on their own behalf....

We are the first generation in which pretty well everyone can read and write fairly fluently. We had the freedom that comes from not having to fear starvation if your employer fires you: there were other jobs to go to, and a welfare state to fall back on. These things made possible the freedom of the 60s.

And what did we do with this wonderful inheritance? We trashed it....

The freedoms the baby boomers fought for, they deny to their children. "Hoodie" was just a name for a garment in fashion with children and teenagers, until it was demonised by people who were young and fashionable in the 60s. Teenagers under legal drinking age have a dramatically reduced range of options for a good night out. Pubs and clubs are barred to them, far more effectively and efficiently than they were ever barred to us. We force our children into the school uniforms we rejected, partly because they help the police to recognise those who ought to be at school. It is like making them wear prison uniform so they will be instantly recognisable when they scale their prison walls...

Opinion polls show that the now elderly baby boomers will use their increasing voting power to ensure that when the bad times come, the young are hit first, even though it is by a chancellor of the exchequer who was not even born until the 60s were over. When the baby boomers were young, they believed society could afford student grants; now they are old, they think it can afford pensions. I say it can afford both – but only if young and old alike learn to care for each other.

Wise words indeed. It is a shame the wisdom of his years has not been taken up by his colleagues on this forum.