No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

Loughton_Monkey

kwmlondon wrote: »

I'm a bit worried about the fact that the jobs market is seeing fewer and fewer well-paid, middle jobs and more and more zero-hours and part time contracts. 30 years ago a middle-class job was that of a teacher, engineer, clerk, hospital administrator, university researcher and they paid similar sorts of amounts to someone in the city, in banking or finance. Now those in the banking sector earn a factor times more than a teacher. If you work hard, get qualified and apply yourself then you've got a pretty rubbish chance of getting somewhere in life.

That may be your perception, but I don't see it quite the same. In 'my' day, only about 5% of people went to university - a lot more to polys, but now 50% go into what is becoming a 'watered down' degree. Virtualy all teachers had to be 'graduates' and so had to be recruited from the 'top' 5% but not, as now, from the masses. And at my (good) grammar school, teachers dealt with classes of 40 on their own. Now people get upset if it goes above 30, and schools are riddled with so-called 'teaching assistants' and all sorts of wet-nursing non-teaching staff/admin. Productivity is dramatically reduced.

Is it any surprise that in millions of other 'mid level' jobs, companies used to need staff who could write, do mathematics, calculate thing, and learn 'the trade'. But now so much is computerised, scripted, dumbed down, thus requiring only a modicum of computer and common sense skills?

I tend to agree about 'the bankers' but only in a very narrow sense. 95% of bank staff are clerks, tellers, admisnistrators etc. Again, there used to be loads of them, but ATM's, Internet Banking, and computerisation has swept away the need for these jobs. But the back-room whizz-kid industry that does nothing except manipulate the markets, taking home their 6 figure bonus is obscene.

kwmlondon wrote: »

It seems that the way we're going the most important thing for the future is luck. Being lucky enough to have wealthy parents and going to the right school. Otherwise you're poor and you're likely to stay poor and so will your children.

This is not good for society, but nobody seems willing to face up to the reality of the situation because the only remedies are wealth redistribution or subsidising important jobs.

Wealth is, to a large extent, cumulative. But I disagree that poor parents means poor prospects to kids. It didn't stop me going from council estate to having a reasonable education/career.

kwmlondon wrote: »

The market is concentrating wealth and privilege in the hands of fewer and fewer people and our health, education and ability to turn hard work and application into success is falling.

If this is 'bad' then the solution is to punish 'the market' [if you can]. Elect a dinasaur government who thinks they can push back the tide if you like, but 'the market' seems to have made the world a spectacularly richer world over time.

kwmlondon wrote: »

Sure, plenty of people will reply to this by saying that their success is down to their hard work, to their saving and being frugal and seeking out opportunities. Well, good for you - well done, but you were lucky that all that work you put in paid off.

I think you're the last generation that will have such great opportunities, from now on it won't matter how hard you work, it won't translate into any kind of meaningful advancement. Surely, that's got to be something we should stop?

Sounds a trifle negative. I was thinking the reverse. Hardly a day goes by without me reading of yet another young 20-something being worth £40 million 4 years after setting up a new internet-based company. My generation had far fewer chances for this, although a lad called "Bill Gates" did quite well if my memory serves.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That would suggest that you had taken issue with the data. I'm sure we'll agree there? Otherwise why would you say "as has been pointed out" etc?

I wanted to highlight this as it's getting extremely boring to have this continual "we won't look at this data as it doesn't suit us" type stance when it comes to the generational threads.

If it doesn't suit, then please tell us what would suit, and we'll get that.

I don't have an issue with the data. More so with comparing the relative poverty of today with that of the 1970's and making a conclusion in the absence of any context whatsoever.

I'd be quite happy to see you shunted off to the '70's in a time machine to take a look. Wait until tomorrow though - the '70's used to shut on a Wednesday afternoon.

If you see my dad (he'll be the bloke standing at the bar about 6 pints of brown & mild into his lunch) can you mention Rag Trade for the '76 National and tell him he might like to buy his son a Chopper with the winnings.

stator

ukcarper wrote: »

Tax take as a proportion of GDP has stayed pretty much the same for the last 50 years

If I was paid a fixed proportion of GDP then this might be relevant!

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

If I was paid a fixed proportion of GDP then this might be relevant!

which measure of taxation would you use to compare say the 70s with the present?

pollypenny

stator wrote: »

Ignoring the insults. Tax is also higher than it's ever been. There might be a fictional 20% income tax, but add on national insurance, student loan repayments, VAT, fuel duty and all the energy bill stealth taxes and you couldn't possibly claim that it's cheaper to be alive now.

There was always purchase tax, in various amounts, tax at 33% as well as NI.

Indeed life is cheaper now: look at our possessions. Most houses are full of electronics, with a large TV costing from around £300. Flying all over the world was something for the very rich. Now people weekend in Dubai!

Stag/ hen nights used to be just that, now they seem to be weekends in Prague.

mayonnaise

pollypenny wrote: »

with a large TV costing from around £300.

Yeah but, yeah but.... how many HDMI connections on a £300 TV??

chucknorris

stator wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting doing anything, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of many old people who moan about today's youth being 'entitled' whilst they are all scrounging off the state themselves.

I may retire soon, if I do, I'll still be a higher rate taxpayer, how exactly would I be 'scrounging'?

danothy

stator wrote: »

If I was paid a fixed proportion of GDP then this might be relevant!

Is your productivity responsible for a fixed proportion of GDP?

bugslet

kwmlondon wrote: »

Sure, plenty of people will reply to this by saying that their success is down to their hard work, to their saving and being frugal and seeking out opportunities. Well, good for you - well done, but you were lucky that all that work you put in paid off.

I think you're the last generation that will have such great opportunities, from now on it won't matter how hard you work, it won't translate into any kind of meaningful advancement. Surely, that's got to be something we should stop?

Er, my limited success is down to hard work, not living an extravagent lifestyle and seeking opportunities.

At some point in the future, there will be driverless vehicles, but not just yet. So do what I did, get yourself a van, slog your guts out for a few years and build up to a company employing 20+ people. Not a huge company, not making millions, but I'm comfortable, I make it possible for others to earn a living. If I can do it, so can you.

Graham_Devon

pollypenny wrote: »

There was always purchase tax, in various amounts, tax at 33% as well as NI.

Indeed life is cheaper now: look at our possessions. Most houses are full of electronics, with a large TV costing from around £300. Flying all over the world was something for the very rich. Now people weekend in Dubai!

Stag/ hen nights used to be just that, now they seem to be weekends in Prague.

Same for generations past though. Every generation has had more in the house than their parents.

This isn't something unique to those growing up today.

The technology argument is completely and utterly flawed. Again, those in the 70's had more technology in their homes than generation before them. Many in the 70's had a fridge. How many in the 40s did? The boomer generation were some of the first to see telephone lines in the house as a norm, the first to see TV's and VCRs in the house as a norm. I just don't know why so much is made of the technology argument when every single one of us in our youth, regardless of when born, have had more technology than our parents. Yet they never mention this when going on and on and on and on about iphones.