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

Masomnia

de1amo wrote: »

the title of this thread is about disillusioned youth...most of them have been to uni and done worthless degrees and wracked up huge debt....need i say any more about not wanting to employ them........there are only about 3 universities in the UK which Uk employers take seriously the others are just places to prolong childhood...by the way i don't have a degree but i have worked hard and now employ people....i am not lucky.i got off my !!! and did it for myself.........i have succeeded in the Uk and here in Turkey.

Priceless.

Percy1983

Jason74 wrote: »

Thanks for the well reasoned reply. Perhaps on the housing side of things, my thoughts are influenced by the fact that I live in London, where the change in prices relative to earnings is somewhat different to the one you describe. The house my parents bought in 1976 cost less than 4 times the salary of a newly qualified electrician. The same house now would cost about 14 times the salary of a newly qualified spark.

More importantly, In London terms, that scenario is not in anyway unusual. Indeed, even in the 12 years since I bought my first home, it's cost relative to average salaries has doubled (it's almost tripled in purely cash terms). Even alllowing for lower interest rates now, there's simply no comparison between the relative copst of buying a modest home now compared to 40 years ago. Most people I know of my parents generation freely acknowledge this fact, and it's only on here that I hear that disputed. As I say though, I'm prepared to acknowledge that this is perhaps a regional thing to some extent.

But it's not just housing. Someone in their 50s now will in most cases have much better pension provision that someone in their 20s on the same career trajectory. Higher education was also much more fully funded for those reaching student age in the 70s than it is today. And then as you say there's there's the jobs issue.

As you say, very little of this has anything to do with boomers in terms of them having done anything wrong. That generation was dealt a good hand, and in the main played it well. But the fact is that they were dealt a fundementally stronger hand than the younger generation today (and the likelyhood is things will get worse still for future generations without family wealth behind them). I generally have no problem with people making the most of that hand, my only criticism is of those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that they were dealt a strong hand, and try to make out that the tougher environment faced by the younger generation is somehow their own fault. It really isn't

I can say its similar up north but not quite as bad, I have bought a house similar in size to my parents, this has taken a full time accountant and full time teaching assistant to buy what a full time security guard and part time checkout operator bought the generation before them.

Now this is the thing as soon as I make this point its just "you all spend it on iphones instead of saving" etc, now don't get me wrong there is reckless in the young (as there is with the older generations) but that isn't the case with all of us.

Then there is the "stop moaning on an internet forum and go and do something about it", yet I have done everything about it and built a solid career and and growing my own business.

Yet like your self I do have parents (and aunties/uncles) who can all acknowledge the simple fact I have had to work harder to get the same as them.

Yes there is many people on here who will agree but there is some who seem to think this isn't the case, yet every time real examples appear you go back to the iphones/do something about it comments.

From there if I say anything about controlling HPI so its fairer for futures generations (as in everybody) I am told this is a selfish point of view which only works for me and my family... yet it will benefit everybody.

Its a shame there is some members on this forum who really can't see past there own noses.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

Thanks for the well reasoned reply. Perhaps on the housing side of things, my thoughts are influenced by the fact that I live in London, where the change in prices relative to earnings is somewhat different to the one you describe. The house my parents bought in 1976 cost less than 4 times the salary of a newly qualified electrician. The same house now would cost about 14 times the salary of a newly qualified spark.

More importantly, In London terms, that scenario is not in anyway unusual. Indeed, even in the 12 years since I bought my first home, it's cost relative to average salaries has doubled (it's almost tripled in purely cash terms). Even alllowing for lower interest rates now, there's simply no comparison between the relative copst of buying a modest home now compared to 40 years ago. Most people I know of my parents generation freely acknowledge this fact, and it's only on here that I hear that disputed. As I say though, I'm prepared to acknowledge that this is perhaps a regional thing to some extent.

But it's not just housing. Someone in their 50s now will in most cases have much better pension provision that someone in their 20s on the same career trajectory. Higher education was also much more fully funded for those reaching student age in the 70s than it is today. And then as you say there's there's the jobs issue.

As you say, very little of this has anything to do with boomers in terms of them having done anything wrong. That generation was dealt a good hand, and in the main played it well. But the fact is that they were dealt a fundementally stronger hand than the younger generation today (and the likelyhood is things will get worse still for future generations without family wealth behind them). I generally have no problem with people making the most of that hand, my only criticism is of those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that they were dealt a strong hand, and try to make out that the tougher environment faced by the younger generation is somehow their own fault. It really isn't

I worked in outer London and was in a fairly good job earning more than a newly qualified electrician. I could not buy in the area I worked and had to move 20 miles further out. That house was just over 5x what I was earning it's about 6x equivalent earning now but the price of house I bought increased by 25% over the next 6 months, prices fell over the next couple of years.


I don't personally think it's the young's own fault but then I don't think we had such a good hand as some people think. As I've shown at times house prices were very similar to now, unless you passed your 11 plus your education suffered and many people ended up in dead end jobs. As I said where I benefited was employment I left school at 16 and got an apprenticeship and the company paid for me to go to college even after my apprenticeship ended. Things are not to good at the moment but that doesn't mean they won't improve and there have been times between when I left school and now when it was very bad for young people.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I can say its similar up north but not quite as bad, I have bought a house similar in size to my parents, this has taken a full time accountant and full time teaching assistant to buy what a full time security guard and part time checkout operator bought the generation before them.

Now this is the thing as soon as I make this point its just "you all spend it on iphones instead of saving" etc, now don't get me wrong there is reckless in the young (as there is with the older generations) but that isn't the case with all of us.

Then there is the "stop moaning on an internet forum and go and do something about it", yet I have done everything about it and built a solid career and and growing my own business.

Yet like your self I do have parents (and aunties/uncles) who can all acknowledge the simple fact I have had to work harder to get the same as them.

Yes there is many people on here who will agree but there is some who seem to think this isn't the case, yet every time real examples appear you go back to the iphones/do something about it comments.

From there if I say anything about controlling HPI so its fairer for futures generations (as in everybody) I am told this is a selfish point of view which only works for me and my family... yet it will benefit everybody.

Its a shame there is some members on this forum who really can't see past there own noses.

You still ignore the fact that prices haven't increased in a linear fashion and the there have been booms and bust. Prices are high now but I really struggle to buy in the 70s but if I was in the same position now I could still buy the same house all be it with a slightly bigger mortgage in relation to my earnings a mortgage that I wouldn't have got in 1972, plus the interest I was paying in 1972 was twice what it would be now.

Jitterbug123

I am 26 and I suppose fall under this category.

I paid the 3k tuition fees, and I went to a Russel Group University. If I had been a baby boomer I most likely would have been at Grammar School and gone on to University too.

I had a permanent job before graduation day, and have been fully employed and promoted 4 times since then. I earn an acceptable amount of money. I am lucky in that respect, but I also work hard.

However, where I am not lucky and where I think the disillusionment comes from is the differences. For instance when there were less graduates it meant that a graduate was more likely to get a higher paid job on leaving university. I started as an assistant and quickly progressed instead. Many of my friends were very scathing about having to take low paid jobs on graduation. I needed to pay rent so I did.

Additionally, I would like to buy a flat (I live in London, so houses just aren't going to happen). I save £500 of my salary a month, and pay rent in Zone 2. So that's a lot gone. However, almost £200 that I could be putting into saving monthly is deducted for my education.

My point is that things have changed. It is harder for someone such as myself to save money, and to get an excellent job based purely on being a graduate. There are more graduates and we had to pay for our education. In this sense those without these issues didn't have these problems.

CLAPTON

Jitterbug123 wrote: »

I am 26 and I suppose fall under this category.

I paid the 3k tuition fees, and I went to a Russel Group University. If I had been a baby boomer I most likely would have been at Grammar School and gone on to University too.

I had a permanent job before graduation day, and have been fully employed and promoted 4 times since then. I earn an acceptable amount of money. I am lucky in that respect, but I also work hard.

However, where I am not lucky and where I think the disillusionment comes from is the differences. For instance when there were less graduates it meant that a graduate was more likely to get a higher paid job on leaving university. I started as an assistant and quickly progressed instead. Many of my friends were very scathing about having to take low paid jobs on graduation. I needed to pay rent so I did.

Additionally, I would like to buy a flat (I live in London, so houses just aren't going to happen). I save £500 of my salary a month, and pay rent in Zone 2. So that's a lot gone. However, almost £200 that I could be putting into saving monthly is deducted for my education.

My point is that things have changed. It is harder for someone such as myself to save money, and to get an excellent job based purely on being a graduate. There are more graduates and we had to pay for our education. In this sense those without these issues didn't have these problems.

if you were a boomer then only 5% of your generation would have gone to Uni

are you in the top 5%?
if so you should be earning at least 60k or above by now.

do you actually know (i.e. have researched ) anything about the living conditions of boomers?

do you know now easy was it for boomers to save money?

ukcarper

Jitterbug123 wrote: »

I am 26 and I suppose fall under this category.

I paid the 3k tuition fees, and I went to a Russel Group University. If I had been a baby boomer I most likely would have been at Grammar School and gone on to University too.

I had a permanent job before graduation day, and have been fully employed and promoted 4 times since then. I earn an acceptable amount of money. I am lucky in that respect, but I also work hard.

However, where I am not lucky and where I think the disillusionment comes from is the differences. For instance when there were less graduates it meant that a graduate was more likely to get a higher paid job on leaving university. I started as an assistant and quickly progressed instead. Many of my friends were very scathing about having to take low paid jobs on graduation. I needed to pay rent so I did.

Additionally, I would like to buy a flat (I live in London, so houses just aren't going to happen). I save £500 of my salary a month, and pay rent in Zone 2. So that's a lot gone. However, almost £200 that I could be putting into saving monthly is deducted for my education.

My point is that things have changed. It is harder for someone such as myself to save money, and to get an excellent job based purely on being a graduate. There are more graduates and we had to pay for our education. In this sense those without these issues didn't have these problems.

You say you most likely would have gone to a grammar school but that might not have been the case as 11 is a very early age to take an exam which will effect the rest of your life.

BobQ

Jitterbug123 wrote: »

I am 26 and I suppose fall under this category.

I paid the 3k tuition fees, and I went to a Russel Group University. If I had been a baby boomer I most likely would have been at Grammar School and gone on to University too.

How do you work that out? About 5% of the population went to university in those days. Many people when to Grammar School's and got a few A levels and then joined insurance companies or banks or joined industry. The difference for them was that they started earning money sooner and were often in corporate training schemes. They did not go to university because they were not judged academically capable of getting a degree. In those days A levels and degrees were more difficult.

Just because you went to a university today does not mean you would have done so when the boomer generation were that age. It was far more competitive at that time. If you got there you knew you were likely to get a good job because employers knew that you were capable of doing a top job.

I had a permanent job before graduation day, and have been fully employed and promoted 4 times since then. I earn an acceptable amount of money. I am lucky in that respect, but I also work hard.

The boomers who went to university had jobs before graduation too. And they worked hard too.

However, where I am not lucky and where I think the disillusionment comes from is the differences. For instance when there were less graduates it meant that a graduate was more likely to get a higher paid job on leaving university.

This is true. The problem you have is that so many of today's "graduate jobs" would never have required a degree in the boomer generations graduation years. Many would have gone to those who were not judge capable of attaining a degree.

My point is that things have changed. It is harder for someone such as myself to save money, and to get an excellent job based purely on being a graduate. There are more graduates and we had to pay for our education. In this sense those without these issues didn't have these problems.

The difficulty you have is that there are too many graduates of average ability and employers find it difficult to pick the best. I do not know if you are a truly clever person or just someone who thinks that because he has a degree it means he must be.

I do think its fair that we opened up a university education to more than the 5% (nothing magical about the figure) but there is no logical reason why lowering the standard of a university education so that 40% of people can get a degree means that 40% of available jobs are worthy of a graduate. That is the real problem.,

Seabee42

Whether it was easier or not should largely be irrelevant. If it is a recognised problem that needs fixing what can we do? I like many am not convinced with our current education system or all the 2 1s from university from people who would never have even got into any college even polytechnics but how do you wind back that clock?

With so many going the state cost had to change hence student fees. For those who go is it better that a degree is now average? Should we ration places again?

NB I am not a baby boomer I think about 8% went to university when I was there and that did include me. But for many years I could not afford a house and in fact this was not possible until the 90s crash.

Sadly with everything being propped up and not allowed to crash this has removed the same opportunity.

[Deleted User]

Just to remind people before the university 'boom' in the mid-90s, 20% of the population was going to uni.