Defeated and trapped. Young look on in despair at The Kingdom of the Boomers

pbouk

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you serious?

Very! Both parents pay tax, so why is it "us boomers" who only contribute to childcare?
Do the parents who work pay for "us boomers" to get free prescriptions?
Do the parents who work pay for "us boomers" to get a free bus pass?
Do the parents who work pay for "us boomers" to get a free tv license?

We could go back and forth saying this group pays for that, and that group pays for this, but we all contribute.

yertiz_2

Jason74 wrote: »

And for those whose grandparents (or parents for that matter) aren't homeowners ?. . . . . . .and there of course lies the big issue here. Going back to the 60s-70s, young people with no family history of wealth had a realistic opportunity of getting together a deposit for a house, accumulating wealth, and ending their working lives significantly richer than their parents based on their own efforts. My parents started just that process when a newly qualified electrician's wage enabled them to buy a 3 bed house in an unfashionable but pleasant London suburb as 21 yr old FTBs in 1976. All without a penny from their parents, who simply had no funds to help them in that way.

For someone starting their working life now, they could work as hard as my parents did, have the same work ethic, be just as successfyul in their jobs, and have the same education as my parents, but would have no chance of acheiving the level of wealth that my parents (or I for that matter) have been able to acheive independently.

It's nothing to do with "wanting it all without working for it", or a "lack of work ethic" or anything of that ilk. Generali's excellent post gives that lie to that idea, as does a recent survey of teachers that suggests that the young generation now are actually more engaged with social issues than previous generations. It comes down to the simple fact that the ever increasing cost of housing has gradually closed off the ability for people to build their own wealth (and more importantly, security). The 20 year old version of my parents now would have to pay somewhere between 12 and 15 times his annual income to buy what my parents bought in 1976 for about 3.5-4 times my Dad's salary. And that's before you even start on inequalities like inferior pension options for young people compared to their predecessors.

That is what has changed. Going back 40 years, if your worked hard and were moderately successful, you'd end up building a secure level of assets for yoursefl and your family, even if you had no family history of assets. Now, the point in the income scale where that is a realistic option is much higher than it was previously, and is continuing to rise.

The 20 year old version of my parents now would probably be facing a lengthy spell of private renting before home ownership was a possibility. If they managed to eventually buy a home at all (and at current prices, that is by no means certain), it would be significantly lower down the scale than the property that they bought in 1976. No less hard working, no less industrious, and every bit as willing to roll up their sleaves as my parents were 40 years ago. But the opportunities jut aren't there in the same way any more.

That is the reality of the currrent situation, and why it's clear that something needs to change. However, it perhaps suits some older people (not my parents I hasten to add, who freely acknowledge that they had opportunities based purely on their age that younger people today do not) to refuse to acknoweldge this reality, as it then absolves them of responsibility to do anything about it.

You may find this interesting then...

http://www.if.org.uk/

lawriejones1

Intergenerational conflict is stoked by the media who find it an easier subject than investigating how we are all being screwed by the Government.

Labour spent recklessly, the Tories have cut indiscriminately, house prices are spiraling out of control (and beyond the realms of reality) and interest rates are terribly low.

As a generation we've certainly been blessed, and I'm 32. Through the hard work and determination of the previous generation my life is easier than it would have been. This is progress and I'm very grateful for it.

If I was a boomer would I have done the same? (Am I doing the same for the next generation?) I don't know - but sitting there arguing about it won't help us.

seven-day-weekend

BillJones wrote: »

No, there won't be anarchy, there'll be whining on an internet forum instead of putting in some genuine effort to get ahead.

You don't seem to actually want equality, you want people who put in the effort in years past to give you a handout.

And no, I won't. If you want material success, get out there and earn it. It's not hard, it just looks that way from where you are sitting.

Absolutely correct. We boomers changed things we didn't like. Much of this generation (X? Y?) doesn't even bother to vote because they listen to the likes of Russell Brand.

seven-day-weekend

MrRee wrote: »

Sadly the young today want everything but don't want to do anything to get it ......... everything is instant, sadly success isn't - it takes years of effort and endeavour ... something generally missing from Gen Y.

It's our fault, we told them that they can have what they want - without telling them that you have to work to get it.

That said, they have had the biggest financial help from the boomers than any generation in history .... certainly, I have invested £1,000's in the next generations future. A helping hand us boomers didn't get!

Another insightful post. Every person of that age I know who has bought a property (including our own son) has been helped with a deposit from parents, grandparents or other relatives.

lawriejones1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Absolutely correct. We boomers changed things we didn't like. Much of this generation (X? Y?) doesn't even bother to vote because they listen to the likes of Russell Brand.

As a generation boomers arguably received more state support than any before or (sadly) after - yet we're looking at an underfunded NHS, a pensions crisis as you guys didn't bother to save, a house market spiraling out of control (as this is the only asset most of you own) and a massive sense of entitlement and a great big chip on your shoulder that leads some of you to discredit and disparage the young.

What a wonderful legacy.

Lastly, this generation are YOUR KIDS. If you are so resentful at helping them out, then why did you bother to have them?

seven-day-weekend

lawriejones1 wrote: »

As a generation boomers arguably received more state support than any before or (sadly) after - yet we're looking at an underfunded NHS, a pensions crisis as you guys didn't bother to save, a house market spiraling out of control (as this is the only asset most of you own) and a massive sense of entitlement and a great big chip on your shoulder that leads some of you to discredit and disparage the young.

What a wonderful legacy.

Lastly, this generation are YOUR KIDS. If you are so resentful at helping them out, then why did you bother to have them?

I never once said I was resentful. I think parents should help their children if they can. I was merely pointing out that we have helped our children, whereas our parents did not have the wherewithall to help us, so we had to do it ourselves.

I personally have never claimed any State Benefits other than Child Benefit for one child. I have savings and Pensions (State and Occupational) that I paid into.

ash28

lawriejones1 wrote: »

As a generation boomers arguably received more state support than any before or (sadly) after - yet we're looking at an underfunded NHS, a pensions crisis as you guys didn't bother to save, a house market spiraling out of control (as this is the only asset most of you own) and a massive sense of entitlement and a great big chip on your shoulder that leads some of you to discredit and disparage the young.

What a wonderful legacy.

Lastly, this generation are YOUR KIDS. If you are so resentful at helping them out, then why did you bother to have them?

Can you quantify your statement regarding state support etc? As a boomer who has received no state support (other than an education up to secondary level, healthcare and child benefit), I am intrigued. Especially as we did make pension provision for ourselves and have an income such that there will be no benefits available to us when we eventually reach state retirement age. Or is it the state pension you have an issue with?

An underfunded NHS is something we have lived with as long as I can remember and as new treatments become available enabling people to live longer (be they elderly, young or in between) then the cost to NHS will increase....that's pretty much a given. Illnesses that used to be terminal when I was a youngster, no longer are terminal - would you rather we went backwards in healthcare, or continued to implement new methods and advances? I, for one hope we continue to improve and perhaps ultimately lower healthcare costs by early detection/prevention along with new treatments. I think the NHS is the biggest publicly funded healthcare system in the world and by it's very nature it will always be underfunded. I guess it would nice for it to be given a blank cheque but that's never happened in my lifetime and I wouldn't expect it to happen any time soon.

Do you think all boomers own houses? I'm pretty sure they don't. And not all boomers live in areas of the country where prices are spiralling out of control....where we live they certainly aren't and are available to the majority of people working full time.

And as for supporting grown up children - when does it stop? Never? When we had our children I really didn't envisage supporting them into their 30s, 40s or 50s, other than with emotional or moral support. They are all in their 30s and I'm happy (and proud) to say that they are all able to support themselves and that includes housing costs. And that's in the south east. We do help them all, but that's mainly with more expensive items for their children, rather than them directly.

Cornucopia

Although I don't agree with "bashing the boomers", it is true that many new innovations are affecting people in negative ways, and in some cases affecting young people disproportionately.

At the same time, young people have to understand that it is inevitable that someone who is 40 or 50 is going to be wealthier on average than someone who is 20. That's simply a fact of life in a relatively rich country.

I think that if I were a young person today, I would consider "dropping out" of the mainstream. That is always an option, especially for those who have practical skills. Wealth isn't the key to happiness.

GeorgeHowell

Some of the primary reasons why the current generation are disadvantaged compared with the Baby Boomer generation at the same age are as follows :-

Liberal post-war education policies which have majored on social engineering and anti-elitism rather than employability. Result is a high level of youth unemployment/unemployability funded via tax by those who work, with better educated and motivated immigrants taking the jobs.

Liberal immigration policies including the effect of EU membership which have helped to increase the population above an optimum level and increased the demand for everything, especially for land and property, causing severe price rises.

Liberal social policies which encourage and subsidise procreation and which have helped to increase the population above an optimum level and increased the demand for everything, especially for land and property, causing severe price rises.

Liberal welfare policies which indiscriminately treat anyone who is apparently disadvantaged as a victim and remove incentives for work, initative, self-improvement, and self-reliance. All has to be funded out of tax by those who do work.

None of these are the direct fault of the younger generation (ie under 30s). I do wonder however how many of that generation recognise these as the sources of many of their problems and will take the trouble to vote for parties that will try to do something about them. Alternatively how many will not vote at all , or will vote for parties who will compound and perpetuate these problems, because of the misguided notion that such liberalism is the modern, progressive, and civilised way to think.