Generational Inequality

Mortgagefreeman

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

With long term planning people can be told at the beginning of their working lives rather than the end what to expect. I know some on here have criticised the WASPI campaign but my mother is one of those affected and within the space of a few years her state pension age increased by five and a half years. I agree that something had to be done to equalise retirement age, but it should have been done a lot sooner and phased in more gradually.

This is a common misconception as the 1995 Pension changes we're well publisised at the time, so your mother can't be any worse off than an additional 18 months.Unfortunately most of the WASPI woman must have been watching daytime TV and seemed to have missed news of the changes.;)

ukcarper

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

This is a common misconception as the 1995 Pension changes we're well publisised at the time, so your mother can't be any worse off than an additional 18 months.Unfortunately most of the WASPI woman must have been watching daytime TV and seemed to have missed news of the changes.;)

My wife was well aware that her pension age was going up after 1995 and accepted that, what she didn't expect was another 18 months added in 2011.

Mortgagefreeman

ukcarper wrote: »

My wife was well aware that her pension age was going up after 1995 and accepted that, what she didn't expect was another 18 months added in 2011.

That's the problem with WASPI. If they'd concentrated their efforts on trying to get the 2011 Act changed they may have gained some concessions. Instead all they do is keep bleating about the 1995 Act.

Of the five WASPI founders, three were ditched by one of them,the back stabbing Anne Keen. They're now getting their revenge through a new group called WASPI Voice. It's all turning out into a bit Civil war between the two groups. Talk about 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' :rotfl:

ukcarper

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

That's the problem with WASPI. If they'd concentrated their efforts on trying to get the 2011 Act changed they may have gained some concessions. Instead all they do is keep bleating about the 1995 Act.

Of the five WASPI founders, three were ditched by one of them,the back stabbing Anne Keen. They're now getting their revenge through a new group called WASPI Voice. It's all turning out into a bit Civil war between the two groups. Talk about 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' :rotfl:

I agree they might have got somewhere if they did that, my wife was aware of earlier changes as were most of her friends.

PasturesNew

This isn't about generations - it's about globalisation. We had "more", others had "less" and technology and globalisation enabled the world's wealthier people to move their firms/jobs to where it was cheapest for them to operate.

With increasing technology reducing jobs - and jobs, where possible, going to other countries, this is what's left.

It's probably due to the actions of a lot of 30-60 year olds that this has been happening.

Articles "blame" the older generation, but it's a few/wealthier people, choosing tax avoidance schemes and structuring their companies to make them the most money by placing jobs etc in cheapest areas, which isn't "here".

A business owner here would rather have a new yacht than raise wages and create 2 new jobs on a living wage, by placing those jobs in countries where they pay staff 10p/hour.

westernpromise

PasturesNew wrote: »

A business owner here would rather have a new yacht than raise wages and create 2 new jobs on a living wage, by placing those jobs in countries where they pay staff 10p/hour.

Oh yes. You can tell by the skyrocketing price of yachts that this is happening.

It reminds me of the old "buy British" nonsense from the 1970s, where Labour ministers would urge us to buy Allegros and Marinas instead of BMWs and Toyotas, to protect jobs at the nationalised companies who made them so shoddily. Well I'm sorry but if someone else does the job both better and cheaper, why on earth should someone who makes junk feel entitled to keep their job making it?

It's the authentic voice of the producer interest.

PasturesNew

westernpromise wrote: »

Oh yes. You can tell by the skyrocketing price of yachts that this is happening.

It reminds me of the old "buy British" nonsense from the 1970s, where Labour ministers would urge us to buy Allegros and Marinas instead of BMWs and Toyotas, to protect jobs at the nationalised companies who made them so shoddily. Well I'm sorry but if someone else does the job both better and cheaper, why on earth should someone who makes junk feel entitled to keep their job making it?

It's the authentic voice of the producer interest.

Those are different products. What if it's the same product?

If I make widgets I can give you a job in my factory and pay you £10/hour as a supervisor, while your family can be employed at £7.20/hour working under you. I can have a nice house and lots of holidays.

Or ... I can close that factory, outsource to the 10p/hour areas, get rid of you and your 5 family members and spend £120k/year on my second home and more world travelling, entertaining and keeping the wife in handbags/shoes.

davomcdave

antrobus wrote: »

So pensioners now have higher incomes because they have jobs and saved money for their old age.

Isn't that what people are supposed to do?

I believe that strictly speaking they, well the men at least, got very valuable final salary pension schemes which are generally closed to young people and are mostly in substantial deficit.

Those young people instead save in defined contribution pension schemes which invest in shares for the most part. Not only are they taking on investment risk which many of their elders did not, their returns are constrained by companies needing to fund the final salary pension schemes the old are benefiting from!

You will notice that when final salary pension schemes were closed the young did not get a pay rise that was remotely close to compensating them for the value of the schemes they were locked out of.

westernpromise

davomcdave wrote: »

I believe that strictly speaking they, well the men at least, got very valuable final salary pension schemes which are generally closed to young people and are mostly in substantial deficit.

Those young people instead save in defined contribution pension schemes which invest in shares for the most part. Not only are they taking on investment risk which many of their elders did not, their returns are constrained by companies needing to fund the final salary pension schemes the old are benefiting from!

You will notice that when final salary pension schemes were closed the young did not get a pay rise that was remotely close to compensating them for the value of the schemes they were locked out of.

I'm not young and I'm not in a final salary scheme either. Am I entitled? Can someone give me some of their bl00dy money?

wotsthat

PasturesNew wrote: »

Or ... I can close that factory, outsource to the 10p/hour areas, get rid of you and your 5 family members and spend £120k/year on my second home and more world travelling, entertaining and keeping the wife in handbags/shoes.

The 6 family members will have to go out and get new jobs. Maybe in second home maintenance, the travel industry or handbag and shoe sales - they sound like they're booming in your scenario.

It's what the candlestick makers, lamp lighters and coal delivery men did.