Pay drop for those under 22

nicechap

theoretica wrote: »

Or the Union had calculated the long term benefit - 2 weeks wages lost for a 10 shilling a week rise may not have been a good deal in isolation, but over the years and cumulatively it adds up. The £5 = 100 shilling higher pay a decade later would probably be worthwhile.

Ditto, plus the increase in value of their eventual pension. And given the time period they are reminiscing about, things like increases in length of holiday pay and entitlement and value of sick pay increases were worth fighting for.

The OP only needs to read through a couple of pages of threads on here to realise the short sightedness of not being in a union.

System

Just need to clarify a point here...I meant that the difference between my rent of £400 ten-fifteen years ago and the same place, which his about £100 more is the equivelent of two iPhone contracts of £50 each.

Gavin83 wrote: »

I think you're seriously overestimating the cost of a phone contract to make a point, it doesn't cost anywhere close to £250 a month, even on the most expensive options. However I do agree with the majority of your post.

System

Agreed. Things have changed a bit, not that much though, and it's this coupled with attitude change. It's just so easy to blame 'the system' and give up instead of actually working towards it.

charlotte1994 wrote: »

I don't think people can compare their experiences to those of a 21 year old now. Wages have changed, inflation has changed, you get way less for your money. £400 16 years ago is the same as £620 in today's money. In 1980 if something cost £100 you would need £299 these days.

JJG

spadoosh wrote: »

.

Im starting to sound like a proper MSE poster but minimum wage when i was 21 (10 years ago and the height of the GFC) was £3.57 vs £7.38 today (£7.70 this year).

When you were 21 the minimum wage was £5.73 rising to £5.80 in the October of 2009.

£3.57 was the under 18 rate.

steampowered

Comms69 wrote: »

People are choosing to live at home; and parents are letting them. It's really rather pathetic.

You are pathetic. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people living at home for a while. It is a perfectly sensible choice and is now the norm for people in their early twenties, not a rarity.

Comms69

steampowered wrote: »

You are pathetic. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people living at home for a while. It is a perfectly sensible choice and is now the norm for people in their early twenties, not a rarity.

Way to get personal...

In my opinion it is pathetic. Adults living a home into their mid to late 20s is ridiculous and my kids will not be doing it

System

steampowered wrote: »

You are pathetic. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people living at home for a while. It is a perfectly sensible choice and is now the norm for people in their early twenties, not a rarity.

Why turn what a poster describes as 'pathetic' into an insult. Can't you argue properly?

rikbar

I completely get the issues with kids these days and the huge expectations that they have.


Only last night I was talking with my step son (16) about this and he couldn't understand why he should bother to try and work to get a job just so that he could work to live. He seemed to expect to be able to have a house like me and his mum soon after leaving school, nice cars and the ability to shop for anything he chooses. He just doesn't get that we had to start at the bottom and work our way up to what we have got and I think this is mainly the fault of people living 'perfect' lives through the prism of social media.


My only comment to him was, where do you think you will be if you don't put any effort in if you think it isn't worth it? He just didn't get that doing nothing meant he would end up with exactly what he put in.


Expectations of lifestyle have changed and not for the better