Some food for Ruggedtoast's soul

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Agree, life basics has improved massively over the last century. In the interest of debate, would you mind stating some of the ways that gen x and y are better off than the boomers? I was going over this in my head, curious what someone else comes up with.

Life basics as you've already said and which continue to improve. Health and wealth will continue to improve (not necessarily in a straight line).

I actually don't think there's an awful lot to debate and find the arguments petulant and self-indulgent. i.e. 'houses are more expensive in London and the South-East - woe is me'.

You'll live longer - houses are expensive
You'll have better healthcare - houses are expensive
You can go to university - houses are expensive
etc.

Happiness is optional.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

In the 60s it was only 5% that went to university and the majority of people would have left school at 15.

BUT - on the job training was commonplace.

You weren't expected to have the training before you had a chance of getting the job.

Swings and roundabouts.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Life basics as you've already said and which continue to improve. Health and wealth will continue to improve (not necessarily in a straight line).

I actually don't think there's an awful lot to debate and find the arguments petulant and self-indulgent. i.e. 'houses are more expensive in London and the South-East - woe is me'.

You'll live longer - houses are expensive
You'll have better healthcare - houses are expensive
You can go to university - houses are expensive
etc.

Happiness is optional.

You have all of that AND a holiday home. So I don't think it's all that wise to be casting assertions about self indulgence.

princeofpounds

I'm pretty supportive of the Generation Y's problems around housing. I also think that the boomer generation has been too selfish in some respects, especially around housing and pensions.


Having said that, I also think that Generation Y is better off than the boomers will be in many respects. Housing just happens to be one of those areas where they are not (and it's a very serious area to have a policy failure).


But the thing I find really pernicious about the housing issue is that this is entirely an artificial, man-made problem.


Some things are better or worse because of external changes (we now have MRI machines, but penicillin is no longer so effective, for example)


Some thing are better or worse because of trade-offs on limited resources (more people get to go to university, but students now largely have to fund their own education)


But housing is a problem that we have chosen to impose upon ourselves, and so it is not a problem that people should just accept and deal with as a natural feature of life.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Life basics as you've already said and which continue to improve. Health and wealth will continue to improve (not necessarily in a straight line).

Health yes, wealth no. I'm specifically referring to the developed world here. It entirely depends on how you measure wealth and so that leads us circularly back to the question.

You have no reason to care at all, and so finding it petulant and self indulgent is completely optional and your choice, no one can tell you otherwise. But to many younger people the answers to all of this can lead to how they shape the world in the future. These things are important, regardless of your views.

An interesting angle, were the youth of previous generations as disaffected as today? Were they showing signs that they were unhappy with the wealth distribution and fairness of society? If so (and remember, views here are prone to bias), then it's a good indication that there is nothing new, nothing to see here, and these same youth will be voting for moderate policies as they get older. If not, then it's probably best to pay attention to why they feel the way they do.

mwpt

princeofpounds wrote: »

I'm pretty supportive of the Generation Y's problems around housing. I also think that the boomer generation has been too selfish in some respects, especially around housing and pensions.


Having said that, I also think that Generation Y is better off than the boomers will be in many respects. Housing just happens to be one of those areas where they are not (and it's a very serious area to have a policy failure).


But the thing I find really pernicious about the housing issue is that this is entirely an artificial, man-made problem.


Some things are better or worse because of external changes (we now have MRI machines, but penicillin is no longer so effective, for example)


Some thing are better or worse because of trade-offs on limited resources (more people get to go to university, but students now largely have to fund their own education)


But housing is a problem that we have chosen to impose upon ourselves, and so it is not a problem that people should just accept and deal with as a natural feature of life.

This is a brilliant answer. One of my favourite I've seen on this forum.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You have all of that AND a holiday home. So I don't think it's all that wise to be casting assertions about self indulgence.

I didn't have a holiday home when I was 22. I remember complaining about how unfair it all was.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

BUT - on the job training was commonplace.

You weren't expected to have the training before you had a chance of getting the job.

Swings and roundabouts.

I agree the opertunities for those leaving school at 16 were better, but plenty of people went into low skilled jobs and did not benefit from apprenticeships.

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

I'm pretty supportive of the Generation Y's problems around housing. I also think that the boomer generation has been too selfish in some respects, especially around housing and pensions.


Having said that, I also think that Generation Y is better off than the boomers will be in many respects. Housing just happens to be one of those areas where they are not (and it's a very serious area to have a policy failure).


But the thing I find really pernicious about the housing issue is that this is entirely an artificial, man-made problem.


Some things are better or worse because of external changes (we now have MRI machines, but penicillin is no longer so effective, for example)


Some thing are better or worse because of trade-offs on limited resources (more people get to go to university, but students now largely have to fund their own education)


But housing is a problem that we have chosen to impose upon ourselves, and so it is not a problem that people should just accept and deal with as a natural feature of life.

I agree there are problems around housing particularly in London and the South East but I don't see how you can relate that to boomers being selfish.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree the opertunities for those leaving school at 16 were better, but plenty of people went into low skilled jobs and did not benefit from apprenticeships.

Well there we go then.

We can't take uni in isolation and suggest people have it better now as more go to Uni. You have to look at the entire picture.