The Trouble With Gen Y

BillJones

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Hmm, my 3 year old Ipad 2 doesn't look ready for a refresh yet.

Are you sure you're not projecting?

No, just using myself as an example, which is not the same sort of thing at all.

cats_ahoy

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Major miscalculation

A £500 iphone would typically still sell for £200 2 years after purchase. If you're buying the phone all at once, you don't need to spend £30 a month, since you can happily get a £10 monthly sim-only contract. Even if you don't sell your phone, they're usually passed on to other family members; saving them purchase costs (i.e. Baby boomers get free phone from their kids)

You're looking at a £270 per year cost of ownership from that - so over 25 years, £6,750 - or 74p a day

Lets compare that to a £14 a month 'landline' cost.. which would be £4200 over the course of 25 years

Everything is expensive when you extrapolate a monthly cost over 25 years

My Samsung Galaxy S3 costs £25 a month, was free with the contract, and is used every day, sometimes for work purposes. My land line costs around £16 a month, and is only there for the occasional call from my mum, and so we can have broadband. Yet the mobile is seen as the luxury??

[Deleted User]

cats_ahoy wrote: »

My Samsung Galaxy S3 costs £25 a month, was free with the contract, and is used every day, sometimes for work purposes. My land line costs around £16 a month, and is only there for the occasional call from my mum, and so we can have broadband. Yet the mobile is seen as the luxury??

Tell me about it... i pay £15.99 to virgin for the pleasure of a landline, then because the wife likes to chat too much, I pay £8 a month for unlimited calls.

So i'm paying £24 a month for a phone I barely use - compared to my mobile where I pay £26 a month, but also gets me 'out and about' internet access, text messages AND unlimited calls (oh, and a Sammy S3 also)

BTW, i've just installed cyanogenmod on it, and it's like having a brand new, faster phone again (with Kitkat). Very easy to do - but remember to back it all up first.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

After a bit of time on Google.
1971 91% of homes had TV and 64% had washing machine. TV was 99% in 2011.

[Deleted User]

ukcarper wrote: »

After a bit of time on Google.
1971 91% of homes had TV and 64% had washing machine. TV was 99% in 2011.

This article will fit in nicely: http://www.theguardian.com/worklifeuk/cost-of-living-1971-today

One interesting thing is noting how many more people now want to live alone

ukcarper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

This article will fit in nicely: http://www.theguardian.com/worklifeuk/cost-of-living-1971-today

One interesting thing is noting how many more people now want to live alone

I don't know where they get average wage of £2000 a year in 1971 I'm pretty sure it was less than that, if you put £2000 in measuring worth website it shows equivalent earnings in 2011 to be just over £40k. Also nationwide house price to earnings ratio was just over 3x in 1971 and that is based on fulltime male earnings.

GeorgeHowell

Apple goods are just symbolic of the phenomenon. You could add to the list :- new cars (ilo used), ditto furniture, top-end/designer clothes and personal effects, frequent meals at upper and top end restaurants, gig and festival tickets, gym subscriptions, spa breaks, long haul holidays, gap years, £20,000+ weddings, stag and hen weeks abroad etc.

I can assure everyone that the Boomer in the 1970s say, on average income, could not and did not afford to spend a comparable proportion of disposable income on the equivalent of such luxuries, and still afford a property of their own.

Not all the younger generation indulge in all or any of these. Some prioritise more substantial things in life. Some do indulge in such things but don't expect to be able to own a property too. But some expect all of this plus an affordable deposit and mortgage despite being on a modest income. And some of those who can't have everything they want need someone to blame, so they pick on the older generation who have already made the sacrifices and have now paid off their mortgages.

"I want it all NOW, Mum !!"

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Apple goods are just symbolic of the phenomenon. You could add to the list :- new cars (ilo used), ditto furniture, top-end/designer clothes and personal effects, frequent meals at upper and top end restaurants, gig and festival tickets, gym subscriptions, spa breaks, long haul holidays, gap years, £20,000+ weddings, stag and hen weeks abroad etc.

I can assure everyone that the Boomer in the 1970s say, on average income, could not and did not afford to spend a comparable proportion of disposable income on the equivalent of such luxuries, and still afford a property of their own.

Not all the younger generation indulge in all or any of these. Some prioritise more substantial things in life. Some do indulge in such things but don't expect to be able to own a property too. But some expect all of this plus an affordable deposit and mortgage despite being on a modest income. And some of those who can't have everything they want need someone to blame, so they pick on the older generation who have already made the sacrifices and have now paid off their mortgages.

"I want it all NOW, Mum !!"

Yer, some young will want that.

But then so did some of the boomer generation when they were young.

No good comparing the average person back then to the specific people you describe today.

Compare the average person back then to the average person today .... I don't think you will find much difference, bar technology has moved on and the VCR of yesteryear has been replaced with new technology today.

Boomers spent money on entertainment just as the youth do today. What was the boom in record shops all about otherwise?

You keep banging on about iphones, but iphones don't even have the biggest market share. Android do at nearly 60% of the market. So what you describe simply cannot be true.

I personally believe the problem today is media. You see a LOT more of what goes on. Everyone has a camera on them. Everyone is making movies about everything and putting them up on youtube / facebook. So you see what is happening, whereas 40 years back, you didn't see that your nephew had just chucked up outside his local pub. It just happened and you didn't have a clue.

The youth haven't just changed in the last 10 or so years. What has changed is your access to monitor what the youth get up to.

What's actually recorded and available to watch shows the same happening back then as happens today. Just look at the Birmingham nail bombings media reports. Birmingham was buzzing with partying youth. Those youth are now todays boomers. So no point in pretending you were all sat inside couting the thrupenny bits in your house deposit jar.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, some young will want that.

But then so did some of the boomer generation when they were young.

No good comparing the average person back then to the specific people you describe today.

Compare the average person back then to the average person today .... I don't think you will find much difference, bar technology has moved on and the VCR of yesteryear has been replaced with new technology today.

Boomers spent money on entertainment just as the youth do today. What was the boom in record shops all about otherwise?

You keep banging on about iphones, but iphones don't even have the biggest market share. Android do at nearly 60% of the market. So what you describe simply cannot be true.

I personally believe the problem today is media. You see a LOT more of what goes on. Everyone has a camera on them. Everyone is making movies about everything and putting them up on youtube / facebook. So you see what is happening, whereas 40 years back, you didn't see that your nephew had just chucked up outside his local pub. It just happened and you didn't have a clue.

The youth haven't just changed in the last 10 or so years. What has changed is your access to monitor what the youth get up to.

What's actually recorded and available to watch shows the same happening back then as happens today. Just look at the Birmingham nail bombings media reports. Birmingham was buzzing with partying youth. Those youth are now todays boomers. So no point in pretending you were all sat inside couting the thrupenny bits in your house deposit jar.

The highlighted bit is true but those boomers are not the ones that bought their homes.


You still had to save I had to save and yes I bought records clothing had holidays but when the time came to save I stopped.


Your right you can't compare the main difference being people generally lived with their parents until they got married and it's obviously a lot easier to save if you aren't paying rent.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The highlighted bit is true but those boomers are not the ones that bought their homes.

That's quite some statement.

My mum and dad partied quite hard in the 70's if I'm to believe them. Certainly the photos seem to back up their memories. The discoteque was all the rage. They bought. And they did it on one lorry driver wage.

We had a VCR too around 1984. I remember it well. Top loader.