No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

ruggedtoast

The boomers had transistor radios. They used to play them too loud on the buses and then go out for some of the ultra-violent.

It was horrible in boomer times.

I would much rather sit in Starbucks with a hipster on an ipad than be in a greasy spoon with mods and rockers trying to kill eachother beacaus they like different music.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The boomers had transistor radios. They used to play them too loud on the buses and then go out for some of the ultra-violent.

It was horrible in boomer times.

I would much rather sit in Starbucks with a hipster on an ipad than be in a greasy spoon with mods and rockers trying to kill eachother beacaus they like different music.

Nothing like giving tax avoiding corporations your hard earned money.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The technology argument is completely and utterly flawed....

I agree with that.

It is simply not good enough to obfuscate the whole debate with side issues, or 'relativity' issues between generations. It is only possible accurately to compare the younger generation, since trying to look at the financial status of today's 65 year old after 40 years of working life is meaningless until we wait another 40 years to compare the actual financial status that today's average 20-something gets to at age 65.

Any boomer can do what I just did. I looked back at my own [let's call it] 'luck' that I went to University. Fewer than 10% went into higher education then. I got my degree and came out for my first job at a 'typical' graduate salary. If I inflate it with RPI to today, it comes out at £13,500 - or just about bang on minimum wage.

So using a 'generous' measure of spending power I was no better off than today's burger flipper. And my net after tax & NI was 80% whereas today's burger flipper would take home 90%.

The median graduate starting salary in 2014 was £29K. That's an uplift of 115%, or more if you calculate net.

There is no need or relevance in obfuscating the debate with issues surrounding 'relativities' between age groups today. You can bang on all you like about [relative] poverty or perhaps whinge about today's 20-something having been better off in pre-recession 2007. That may be so but is irrelevant.

Nothing on this world will convince me that the 21 year old in 1973 was financially better off than today's 21 year old. Graduate or Non graduate. By and large, people born in every decade have had a far better financial position [net income and what it will buy] than the previous decade.

Now if you want to look at the financial status of today's average 65 year old, then fine. Compare him with 65 year olds of long ago by all means because the facts are there. But you cannot in any way compare today's 65 year old (after 40+ years' work) with what today's 20-something lad will achieve financially when he is 65. I strongly suspect it will be brilliant by today's standards. If it isn't, the reason will surround issues about how people saved/spent their increased incomes (including increased inherited wealth). But we have to wait another 30/40 years for that. Anything else is pure supposition.

This is why most boomers get irritated with the immature debating points which all seem to project 'straight line' from the last 7 years or so of 'austerity', recession and painfully slow recovery. These arguments are all meaningless, unintelligent, and whinging.

lawriejones1

Inter-generational conflict is pointless, and is based on the assumption that one group has to suffer to subsidise the other. Currently it's portrayed as the young being disadvantaged to support the old.

It's nice for the Government as it stops us all looking at the bigger picture of huge subsidies for business, the channeling of money to banks and others, the privatisation of state assets cheaply and much more.

It's also an ignorant person who won't consider the impact of immigration. Doing so doesn't make you a racist, but a realist.

N1AK

lawriejones1 wrote: »

Inter-generational conflict is pointless... Currently it's portrayed as the young being disadvantaged to support the old.

It's nice for the Government as it stops us all looking at the bigger picture of huge subsidies for business, the channeling of money to banks and others, the privatisation of state assets cheaply and much more.

It's also an ignorant person who won't consider the impact of immigration. Doing so doesn't make you a racist, but a realist.

If anything the opposite is true. Saying 'blame the government' redirects us away from looking at why people chose that government in the first place.

The young are being disadvantaged to support the old. That's why working age benefits are frozen, while retirement age benefits are increasing above inflation. That's why the government gives £300 million to pensioners with savings, while proposing taking £300 million off parents who have 'too many' children.

Of course we're selling off public assets. The people who vote for the conservatives benefit from having the £700 million now to avoid cuts to spending on them.

Even your protestations about funnelling money to the banks rings false. Who owned those banks and would have lost most if they failed? Pension funds.

Your last comment on immigration is just the same blinkered xenophobia as usual. There is a difference between considering immigration, and having decided you don't like it and making up arguments to support your bias.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

If anything the opposite is true. Saying 'blame the government' redirects us away from looking at why people chose that government in the first place.

The young are being disadvantaged to support the old. That's why working age benefits are frozen, while retirement age benefits are increasing above inflation. That's why the government gives £300 million to pensioners with savings, while proposing taking £300 million off parents who have 'too many' children.

Of course we're selling off public assets. The people who vote for the conservatives benefit from having the £700 million now to avoid cuts to spending on them.

Even your protestations about funnelling money to the banks rings false. Who owned those banks and would have lost most if they failed? Pension funds.

Your last comment on immigration is just the same blinkered xenophobia as usual. There is a difference between considering immigration, and having decided you don't like it and making up arguments to support your bias.

of course one might argue that

- the young support the idea of decent pensions for their parents and grandparents and also themselves when the time comes


-many people, both young and old, think that encouraging large families that live on benefits as a lifestyle choice should be discouraged

-the 700 million made on Euro tunnel will be spent on the NHS

-if banks had failed and all deposits were lost, then UK business would have collapsed and with it a huge number of jobs : both young and old would have lost their life savings.
Pension funds tend to hold a lot of government gilts and so wouldn't have been so badly affected.

-wanting a smaller population makes a lot of sense in an country with limited natural resources, not self sufficient in food, fuel, electronics goods etc and with a large trade deficit and increasing foreign debts.
Not to mention the adverse effect on climate change, deaths from increased waiting time for NHS treatment, inefficiencies due to increase congestion on the roads, massive costs of expanding the infrastructure to cope with increased numbers; low productivity due to endless availability of cheap labour
plus many other disadvantages.

Of course some people refuse to think about issues of expanding population in real terms but remained wedded to a few slogans

kwmlondon

bugslet wrote: »

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.

You mistake my concern for younger people for being a young person. I have a house in central London, I'm married and I've got a final salary pension. I've got a decent job in a secure sector, postgraduate qualifications and - truth be told - I'm allright Jack. Thank you very much. But I look at my own life and the luck I've had (and by luck I mean that my hard work and education paid off) and I don't see people 10, 15, 20 years younger having the same opportunities as I did.

I just really feel desperately sad for the generation coming through. They are getting less and less back for more and more work and we are the ones who had it all not easy, I'm not saying we or you had it easy, but we grew up in a world where it was understood that if you worked hard you got on.

Now, you can work as hard as you like, you probably won't get on. And forget the rubbish about immigrants, I'm not talking about jobs picking fruit or collecting cockles, I'm talking about middle job. The kind of jobs that should mean you can buy a house, a car, and raise a family. These jobs are going. We are scooping out out society to be the poor and the rich - we need a middle class that you can get into by working hard.

I say it again, if you work hard you should be able to get into a better life. It's not happening any longer.

shaggydoo

The number of old people in the UK killing themselves has fallen. Why?

Once elderly people in the UK were the most likely group to take their own lives, but now they are at lower risk than the middle-aged.

Maybe because Boomers know how to treat old people?!

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31690979

setmefree2

kwmlondon wrote: »

Now, you can work as hard as you like, you probably won't get on.

Of course you will - that just sounds like an excuse for not trying. I wouldn't listen to that !!!!!! from my kids.

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

......Of course we're selling off public assets. The people who vote for the conservatives benefit from having the £700 million now to avoid cuts to spending on them.....

Nothing obscures a debate more than a nice bit of ill-informed, ignorant, emotional claptrap.

1. The Government [i.e. taxpayer] owns a minority stake in Eurostar, a privately operated company. In other words we own assets [i.e. a bunch of shares] valued at £700 million.

2. Meanwhile, the Government [i.e. taxpayer] is avidly trying to close down the deficit and avoid having to borrow money (at more cost) to keep paying its dues.

3. So it sells the shares with the net result of retaining an asset worth £700 million. Except it is in cash and can thus be used as revenue avoiding the cost of borrowing.

This, I would suggest, is 'good housekeeping'. I would have thought that this should be applauded equally by the single parent on benefits (who votes Labour), the Bank CEO (who votes Conservative), and the local National Trust hippie (who votes Green). Even the local circus clown (who votes UKIP) would be pleased if only he understood it.

Why do you specifically link Eurostar shares with Conservative voters?

Perhaps we should pay Housing Benefit in Eurostar shares instead?