Where have all the 20 something’s gone?

Jaywood89

I haven!!!8217;t said this to you yet (though I keep thing it) but you are wrong.

I grew up in the 90!!!8217;s parents gave their kids fizzy drinks. For all the reasons I just said. My friends drank fizzy drinks, one had all her front teeth removed because they were rotten. Coca-Cola was invented long before the millennials were ruining the world.

I don!!!8217;t know many people today who let their kids drink fizzy drinks the way kids did when I grew up, mine aren!!!8217;t allowed it at all and drink water or squash. Same way we don!!!8217;t smoke round our kids and ensure they are in car seats when we travel.

I!!!8217;m starting to wonder how many under 30!!!8217;s you have actually met? I don!!!8217;t mean to sound rude but you have a very bleak view of a generation you admit to not be part of. I get the entitled thing, but all future generations are entitled to a point. (I!!!8217;m sure you will disagree)

Overall Like I said let!!!8217;s agree to disagree. You have made it clear it!!!8217;s their own fault in your view and I disagree.

Cakeguts

Jaywood89 wrote: »

Economic.

I just fine your approach very black and white. As I!!!8217;ve said to others doesn!!!8217;t make you wrong, I!!!8217;m just struggling to wrap my head around it.

For example a lot of people in the 70!!!8217;s and 80!!!8217;s were able to get onto the market because of the selling off of the council houses, a lot of my family became home owners because of this, it!!!8217;s the event that changed the very nature of the housing market beast.
(As I understand it, correct me if I!!!8217;m wrong I admit to being a novice)

Council houses are rare now, rentals are expensive and over crowding a home (to save cash) is actually illegal so people can!!!8217;t really just suck it and get on with it. I think to pretend their isn!!!8217;t ANY housing issue and it!!!8217;s all people!!!8217;s own fault would be naive, isn!!!8217;t it still considered poverty if more than 25% of your monthly income is spent on rent? For most rentals people spend closer to 50% so are we saying we should expect to raise an entire generation in poverty. Don!!!8217;t get me wrong in my work I enter a lot of peoples homes and wonder how they have no wall paper up yet have a 50 inch flatscreen tv and £65 trainers on and just wonder what the hell is wrong with people! But this isn!!!8217;t everyone and I find the poorer the family the more silly their purchases. Most working family tend to try and live better within the means. These are the people I think are missing out. And the ones that should be able to purchase a home like their parents did before them without resorting to extreme styles of living and saving.

Let me tell you about the council houses and then you can decide. The theory is this. If someone gets a council house on a secure tenancy they will be there for life so during that time that particular house will not be available for anyone else to live in. So lets say someone gets a council house at age 20 and they live to 90. There is a chance that for 70 years that council house will not be available for anyone else to live in. For that 70 years it doesn't matter whether the house is rented from the council or owned by the tenant because it isn't available for anyone else to live in. The difference is once the owner/tenant dies or if the tenant sells the house.

The discout was there to allow poorer people to buy their home not to allow them to make a profit from the discount at the expense of other less well off people.

Poverty is relative for example someone earning £6000 per month but spending £2000 per month on rent would be living in poverty because they were spending more than 25% of monthly income on rent? Where do you draw the line? What do you define as a luxury? This is what I define as a luxury, a holiday, a car, a less than 10 years old television, dishwasher, £65 for pair of trainers, new furniture, fizzy drinks, wine, beer, takeaways, eating out, a pet, a mobile phone that isn't a pay as you go phone, computer, broadband at home. I could live quite well without any of those items. In fact I did for several years when I was young. People aren't going to die just because they don't have an iphone.

Cakeguts

Jaywood89 wrote: »

Red-squirrel I have to agree that the notion that it!!!8217;s ALL down to poor money management by 20 something!!!8217;s is abit to cut and dry.

If I personally cut out all silly spending I.e no phones, internet, coffee, nights out I probably would only save couple hundred a month which would still take me 10 years to put a deposit down on a starter home, by then I!!!8217;d be nearly 40!. I couldn!!!8217;t of done this in my early 20!!!8217;s as I didn!!!8217;t even spend money on these things, just about could keep the bills paid. Clothes, nights out etc were always paid for by my lovely mom.

You forgot the interest. When you start to save in a big way you put the money into an account that earns as much interest as possible. A couple of hundred a month is a lot of money if you are saving for a home. That is £2400 plus interest a year of free money that hasn't been wasted on things you don't need. It isn't really even serious saving it is just not buying things you don't need. If you then save properly on top of that you can put even more away. Then as your salary increases or you get a second job you put even more away. Don't forget this is free money it is all saved from things that you don't need to buy. There is no rule anywhere that says that you have to spend everything you earn every month. If you find something you don't need but would like you don't have to buy it. I can afford to have a more expensive mobile phone but I don't need it. The one I have got is good enough. If something still works we don't change it to get the latest model.

The time when you can afford all these things are when you have paid off your mortgage because then your housing costs are the lowest.

jimbog

Jaywood89 wrote: »

Millennials didn’t invent fizzy pop. Or mobiles or the use of plastic cups. The use of them by us is a learnt behaviour of the generations before us.

And if we want to get really deep, the reason people give their children sugary drinks and snacks is pathological, sugar makes us happy, seeing children happy makes parents happy. Unfortunately we can be stupid on mass and despite knowing the dangers of a product such as sugar, without immediate negative consequence we tend to ignore it for the instant high we recieve. Thats before we factor in subliminal advertising, social peer pressure or pure ignorance, That’s not a generational problem that’s human nature.

Rarely have I read such nonsense in this forum

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by home area. I have lived in Southport, Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield and London. Which one of those is my home area?

Maybe you don't regard yourself as having a home area within Britain. But I'm betting you regard Britain as a whole as your home area.

But that is not to gainsay many of us do.

My home area is where my parents moved when I was primary school age (within the county both my mother and then myself were born in) and are still there. Followed by my deciding that that is the area I would live in - and, as I havent changed my mind on that decision (even though house prices have necessitated my moving elsewhere in the country) then it is still my home area and likely to remain so. Hence my tag of "home area" and "current area".

Though I guess that even amongst those that are war/climate refugees from other countries that have lived in Britain for some time/maybe many years - some of them will regard their home country as their home area still but others will have decided where they now are is their home area. Hence I get very confused by things like people that describe themselves as a different nationality to what their parents are (eg my parents are both English - and so I am English and don't self-identify as Greek/Russian/French/etc/etc).

moneyistooshorttomention

economic wrote: »

But men can have them into their 50s even 60s/70s in some cases. So women have many choices. If they want kids straight away then they should have kids with someone older and financially secure so that the woman can concentrate on their career whilst the man can look after the family financially until the woman has enough earning power.

If the woman wants to concentrate on a career first (which is what society has changed to) then they will have eventually have to have kids by 35 - they would be financially ok possibly own a house so can chose to have kids someone her age or even younger who is not so financially secure. If the woman is not financially fine, then have kids with someone who is who would be quite possible quite a bit older then the woman.

Theres always a sacrifice to be made. Life is not a hollywood movie.

:rotfl:Has anyone ever told you that Britain is a country where we marry for love? I'm guessing you may be used to witnessing arranged marriages - but that's not how things are in Britain. That's certainly the theory anyway - even though I've seen a noticeable number of people "settle" for Someone Else (instead of waiting for Mr/Miss Right to come along - and accepting that they'll never marry if they don't meet that person).

Would be very interested to know how one is supposed to fall in love to order with someone older/more financially secure and have them fall in love with you in return. DO tell - I'm all agog:rotfl:

Davesnave

jimbog wrote: »

Rarely have I read such nonsense in this forum

I did warn people yesterday that this discussion would get very silly.....and it has.

It always does!

The Pythons' sketch is so lasting and brilliant, because it focuses on the way previous generations cannot convey what things were like in a earlier era, but even they may now see the past "through a glass darkly" or, alternatively, with a rosy glow.

Came damn close to proving Godwin's Law too.

AdrianC

Cakeguts wrote: »

A supermarket is selling a soft drinks at 33p per 100 mil.

While I agree with your basic tenet, you do your argument no favour with this kind of exaggeration.


https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/fizzy-drinks-and-cola/all
2l bottle of Pepsi - 10p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254857265
Ownbrand equivalent - 3p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/257730721
Multipack of Coke cans - 14p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/267212248
Even multipack of small Coke cans - 25p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/257716382


PS - there's a certain irony given your username...

SG27

Cakeguts wrote: »

Yes but I am talking about roads and roads of terraced houses that are now first time buyers homes and are full of parked cars you can see them on google maps parked nose to tail all down the streets and this in an area with very good public transport. They can't all be care workers working unsocial hours. The entitled generation will buy a car before they buy anything else. Cars are expensive to run especially if you are trying to save up for a house or move to a bigger house.

The government has introduced a sugar tax to help with obesity in children. There are 100s of children having their first teeth removed because they are rotten from drinking sugary drinks. Water comes out of the tap and is much cheaper plus it doesn't come in plastic bottles. A supermarket is selling a soft drinks at 33p per 100 mil. That has to be more expensive than tap water. So why are people giving their children expensive sugary drinks that make them fat and rot their teeth? What is wrong with water? The sugary drinks are part of the entitlement along with the cars, mobile phones, latest gadgets and all the other things they buy that they don't actually need but want. They don't feel the need to go without.

I actually thinhk this poster is trolling now as the posts are so nonsensical.

economic

AdrianC wrote: »

While I agree with your basic tenet, you do your argument no favour with this kind of exaggeration.


https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/fizzy-drinks-and-cola/all
2l bottle of Pepsi - 10p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254857265
Ownbrand equivalent - 3p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/257730721
Multipack of Coke cans - 14p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/267212248
Even multipack of small Coke cans - 25p/100ml - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/257716382


PS - there's a certain irony given your username...

It depends where you buy it. If you buy soft drinks at a bar or a vending machine or a small local shop or a restaurant - there is usually markups when bought at these places.