The Trouble With Gen Y

LydiaJ

Generali wrote: »

AIUI, the boom in property ownership was really down to Right to Buy. Until then barely half of Britons owned their homes.

Only goes up to 2010 but here's a graph:



Not sure why the headline says UK and the data source says England. Slack reporting by the BBC, I suspect. Apologies to non-English UK citizens.

I believe the private renters overtook the social renters in about 2012.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

why didn't 100% of people own houses then as they were so cheap?

Availability of credit. Building societies had 2 year waiting lists for mortgages. So you had to save for a deposit to even be considered for one.

BillJones

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I doubt some people here were ever young.

Thank god for the Hemingways and the Kerouacs I say. Life is too short for bean counting buy to let Scrooge McDucks who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Which is fine, but removes any right whatsoever to moan when other people took life more seriously and end up with second homes in France, nice sports cars, and a flat on the Thames.

Strangely this forum seems full of people with a weird sense of entitlement who want to live their early years taking on no responsibility, and then still have the lifestyle of people like me when they hit their thirties.

Their moaning is ridiculous, as is their petulant demands that I should subsidise their choices.

Generali

BillJones wrote: »

Which is fine, but removes any right whatsoever to moan when other people took life more seriously and end up with second homes in France, nice sports cars, and a flat on the Thames.

Strangely this forum seems full of people with a weird sense of entitlement who want to live their early years taking on no responsibility, and then still have the lifestyle of people like me when they hit their thirties.

Their moaning is ridiculous, as is their petulant demands that I should subsidise their choices.

Were the young ever different as a group?

I remember punks (just about) and they seemed to think that their parents had all the money and they had nothing and no opportunities:

The offered me the office, offered me the shop
They said I'd better take anything they'd got
Do you wanna make tea at the BBC?
Do you wanna be, do you really wanna be a cop?

Career opportunities are the ones that never knock
Every job they offer you is to keep you out the dock
Career opportunity, the ones that never knock

I hate the army an' I hate the R.A.F.
I don't wanna go fighting in the tropical heat
I hate the civil service rules
And I won't open letter bombs for you

As I mentioned before, Turn on, Tune in, Drop out doesn't sound like a motto for capital accumulation.

It seems that this forum also attracts people who have made no mistakes in life and have been [STRIKE]misers[/STRIKE] savers from birth to death.

marlot

I would say the majority of the young people I work with are sensible people. Some would rather spend their money on housing, some would prefer on socialising and cars.

I'd say that's similar to when I was young.

I think the big things which are different are the availability of credit, more opportunities to spend money instantly, student loans and the collapse of pensions.

I think the big two are the pensions and loans. I only appreciated the value of my pensions when they started to be taken away from me - and really appreciate them in the last ten years. I'm so glad I didn't have the overhead of loans when I started out. I'm not convinced that the demise of vocational qualifications to the benefit of academic is balanced. I'm pleased that apprenticeships are making a comeback.

I notice that all four young people who live in my street have been given new cars on their 17th/18th birthdays, which was unheard of when/where I grew up. But cars are probably less expensive relative to salaries than they were then.

BillJones

Generali wrote: »

It seems that this forum also attracts people who have made no mistakes in life and have been [STRIKE]misers[/STRIKE] savers from birth to death.

Really?

I missed out on a good few years of banking money through being a scientist, instead, for some of the highest paying years. It's a shame, as I'll never catch up with what I'd have earned, but I wanted to do physics, despite the low pay, so did.

I'm happy to live with the outcome of my decisions.

cats_ahoy

BillJones wrote: »

Really?

I missed out on a good few years of banking money through being a scientist, instead, for some of the highest paying years. It's a shame, as I'll never catch up with what I'd have earned, but I wanted to do physics, despite the low pay, so did.

I'm happy to live with the outcome of my decisions.

Physicists in both academia and industry are generally well paid... Even the PhD stipend is quite generous. Professors and industry physicists can get around 60K a year :eek: Did it not used to be like this in previous years?

thorsoak

In 1963, with a combined annual salary of £998, we purchased a new 3-bed semi in Essex for £3,300 - interest rate 6.125% fixed.

We sold it in 1976, having added central heating, for £12,250.

At the end of 2012, the same house sold for £205,000. No extensions added, just upgrading.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

AIUI, the boom in property ownership was really down to Right to Buy. Until then barely half of Britons owned their homes.

In 1973 2% of 25-44 year olds live alone in 2011 it was 10%.


Source 0NS

LydiaJ

cats_ahoy wrote: »

Physicists in both academia and industry are generally well paid... Even the PhD stipend is quite generous. Professors and industry physicists can get around 60K a year :eek: Did it not used to be like this in previous years?

Most research physicists in academia do not become professors ever, and don't even become tenured lecturers with secure jobs until after they've done 8-10 years of 2-year contracts, moving round the country (or the world) after every 2 years. Lots never make it to the level of a contract for longer than 2 years. Even if they do, normal lecturer jobs are paid on a scale ranging from £23-36k, with senior lecturers able to get up to about £40k Even if they do reach the peak of the career path, they can get, as you say, about £60k, or maybe a bit more in rare cases.

These are the people with the country's very best mathematical/technical brains, who have trained for 6-7 years before being qualified to get an actual job, and who can walk into "rocket scientist" banker jobs if they jump ship. Do you still think academia is well paid compared with careers with similar entrance standards?