Jilted Generation

verylonglegs

daviesee wrote:

Waiting for the world to provide you with anything is a mugs game. If you want something, go out and earn the right to get it.

I don't think they want it handed to them on a plate, just a fighting chance of getting there. I'm mid-thirties so..um..maybe in between the two I guess. I see how the generation retiring after many years of hard work feel they have earnt a decent retirement but I can also see how those starting out look at what lies ahead and think 'feck me!'

Just a small example that exasperates me is, from reading my local paper (dangerous I know), the number of new housing developments that are opposed by the older generation. Every protest is a picture full of wrinklies desperate to deny any new housing built near their homes in order to protect their value and 'tranquility'. Someone needs to point out to them their grandchildren are going to have to live somewhere.

Jez mon

I can only speak from my personal experience. When I graduate, I want to get a job abroad as soon as possible!

cooldad

Jez mon wrote:

I can only speak from my personal experience. When I graduate, I want to get a job abroad as soon as possible!

I collect passports. Have UK, SA, NZ (which works in Aus) so just looking for a gorgeous rich Yank woman to marry to complete the set.

finchy

Jez mon wrote:

I can only speak from my personal experience. When I graduate, I want to get a job abroad as soon as possible!

The UK's a fantastic place to live compared to most other places in the world, but going to work abroad is a really great opportunity to seize. Good luck to you.

I must say the only thing I really missed about the UK when I was abroad was my family. And you really start to appreciate how important family is when you haven't seen them in 5 months.

rdt

cooldad wrote:

Wrong again, most people have worked, lived a bit, drank beer and watched MOTD.
Selfish does not come into it. Politicians have bought votes, as is their wont, and the true cost is coming out, that's the system.

That's probably fairly close to the truth.

Your ordinary punter just gets on with their lives, trying to do the best they can in the environment in which they find themselves. They are not intentionally, selfishly, thinking "let's steal from the young uns", and portraying the situation like that may be fun, and get the crowd going, but it isn't the reality, so won't solve anything.

Regarding house prices, that environment was one of low and falling interest rates, ever increasing credit availability, and ever laxer credit standards. In an unregulated environment like that, with people able to service ever larger debts, very large house price rises are inevitable.

No point in blaming the people buying the houses, they didn't make the rules. The rules were made by the politicians and the central bankers (the Federal Reserve's Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke etc, and our own Bank of England, Mervyn King etc), who presided over the financial and economic framework in which this all took place.

Plenty of people could see that this was storing up many problems (of which the banking crisis is one aspect), but the folks at the helm were content to keep driving it on, blind (intentionally or through ineptness, or a combination of both) to the disasters lurking ahead. The lack of wisdom in the folks who've been running the show, financially, for the past decade and a half is astonishing. As a nation, we do have very serious problems, centred around the financing of the "lifestyle" we were told we could have and think we deserve, but which take little account of the economic realities of longevity, healthcare costs, labour market globalisation, debt and international competition for resources. Many of these issues affect the older generation as well the younger.

In one sense, the big thing that the younger generations have on their side is time. Over time, those who've been disenfranchised by developments over the past 15 years will come to be an ever larger minority, and eventually a majority. They'll start to become the higher earners and the people holding the most power in society. So these things will tend to resolve themselves, even though it's not clear currently how or what these changes will be.

And then, eventually, we'll hear the following generation (those without even a voice yet), complaining that they've been shafted too, and the cycle will continue.

daviesee

verylonglegs wrote:

Someone needs to point out to them their grandchildren are going to have to live somewhere.

One day the old people will die. Their houses will become available. That is a fact.

"Be nice to your children, they pick your care home".

"Be nice to your parents, they pick who gets their inheritance".

Be nice.

On the subject of going abroad. I did it and would fully recommend it to any young person.
I feel you have to do it while you are young with less ties and therefore more mobile.
It opened my eyes to what is available in this country that most take for granted.

Do it and enjoy!

Consider this though, the grass may be greener on the other side but that might be because it rains more.

Le Commentateur

guinea wrote:

It's intergenerational theft.

The boomer generation have shafted anyone under 40.

When they were kids a man with a good job could pay for his wife to stay at home and raise kids. They then went to good schools, free university and got great pensions knowing full well we'd have to pay for it.

That entire generation should be banned from retiring or getting any more state help until they've paid back what they've stolen.

Maybe, but that generation now lead the three major political parties.

tebbit

I have just started reading it, however it does come across as centred on London and the South East and not representative of the country as a whole, the Baby Boomers have been side lined by the cohort born after '64, which the leadership of all the main political parties belong, not the Baby Boomers. The cohort born after '64 have faced a period of change not seen since the Victorian era and have become very adaptable, hence the current early stranglehold on political leadership, the boomers have one elected prime-minister Tony Blair, and one anointed, Brown, compare that to the war time generation who produced Wilson, Heath, Callaghan and Thatcher, with Major as a war era child. The Boomers are a flash in the pan, more sinned against than sinning.

verylonglegs

daviesee wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Someone needs to point out to them their grandchildren are going to have to live somewhere.

One day the old people will die. Their houses will become available. That is a fact.

"Be nice to your children, they pick your care home".

"Be nice to your parents, they pick who gets their inheritance".

Be nice.

On the subject of going abroad. I did it and would fully recommend it to any young person.
I feel you have to do it while you are young with less ties and therefore more mobile.
It opened my eyes to what is available in this country that most take for granted.

Do it and enjoy!

Consider this though, the grass may be greener on the other side but that might be because it rains more.

That may be so but I think the housing model in this country needs slightly more progressive thinking than simply waiting for people to die.

ColinJ

cooldad wrote:

Doesn't work like that.

And I think you'll find the hippies in the sixties were saying much the same thing.

Hippies from Manchester and Leeds were coming here in the 60s and 70s in their droves, and buying houses for £400 or so.

I managed to buy mine for £26k 22 years ago, a big price increase but just affordable.

Now it is a really trendy town and these same little terraced houses with no gardens would cost up to £120-150k.

Young people wanting to buy here now don't stand a chance.

finchy

I don't think that middle aged and old people have been sitting around saying "hahaha, now we're going to really mess things up for the young" - it's more like unintended consequences and an unrestrained free market.

sloboy

I reckon it's fair to say that there was a band of 25 years or so, where folks saw a very good average upturn over their lives. From the people just too young to serve in the war to those born around 1955. Housing costs and pension values are the two massive swingers and in that narrow band them coupled with the explosive increase in life expectancy meant that the actuaries were caught out and the whole system can no longer deliver the promises delivered then.

On the other hand, apart from that short "GOLDEN AGE" subsequent generations have been better off than any previous in history. So it's the second prize you have to settle for.

But I do see the younger folks making different use of their time - my nephew who's about 27 is just off on his second sabbatical. No question of just sitting there and grafting as my father's generation would have assumed and I wonder if its because the youngsters today suspect there can be no golden retirement that they can predict.

Frank the tank

johnfinch wrote:

I don't think that middle aged and old people have been sitting around saying "hahaha, now we're going to really mess things up for the young" - it's more like unintended consequences and an unrestrained free market.

I agree to a point. I just see it as the very wealthy are sufficiently insulated that it doesn't matter how cold this recession gets for the working masses, they'll be nice and warm, thank you very much.

Personally I think todays responsible youngsters have it really tough and I envy them not one jot.

cooldad

Frank the tank wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I don't think that middle aged and old people have been sitting around saying "hahaha, now we're going to really mess things up for the young" - it's more like unintended consequences and an unrestrained free market.

I agree to a point. I just see it as the very wealthy are sufficiently insulated that it doesn't matter how cold this recession gets for the working masses, they'll be nice and warm, thank you very much.

Personally I think todays responsible youngsters have it really tough and I envy them not one jot.

The very wealthy have always been sufficiently insulated, except a few hundred years ago they could throw you in their dungeon if you annoyed them. Count yourself lucky.

Maybe a little revolution is in order - any old guillotines lying around?

rick_chasey

rdt wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Wrong again, most people have worked, lived a bit, drank beer and watched MOTD.
Selfish does not come into it. Politicians have bought votes, as is their wont, and the true cost is coming out, that's the system.

That's probably fairly close to the truth.

Your ordinary punter just gets on with their lives, trying to do the best they can in the environment in which they find themselves. They are not intentionally, selfishly, thinking "let's steal from the young uns", and portraying the situation like that may be fun, and get the crowd going, but it isn't the reality, so won't solve anything.

Regarding house prices, that environment was one of low and falling interest rates, ever increasing credit availability, and ever laxer credit standards. In an unregulated environment like that, with people able to service ever larger debts, very large house price rises are inevitable.

No point in blaming the people buying the houses, they didn't make the rules. The rules were made by the politicians and the central bankers (the Federal Reserve's Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke etc, and our own Bank of England, Mervyn King etc), who presided over the financial and economic framework in which this all took place.

Plenty of people could see that this was storing up many problems (of which the banking crisis is one aspect), but the folks at the helm were content to keep driving it on, blind (intentionally or through ineptness, or a combination of both) to the disasters lurking ahead. The lack of wisdom in the folks who've been running the show, financially, for the past decade and a half is astonishing. As a nation, we do have very serious problems, centred around the financing of the "lifestyle" we were told we could have and think we deserve, but which take little account of the economic realities of longevity, healthcare costs, labour market globalisation, debt and international competition for resources. Many of these issues affect the older generation as well the younger.

I don't buy that. It's absolving responsibility to the witch-hunted few. There was a demand for low credit, and people gave it. People demanded mortages which they couldn't afford. Banks made cash out of those by giving them and securitising them off. Then, when the people who demanded these big mortgages began to default, since they couldn't afford it, everyone got screwed - those who defaulted, and those who gave out the loans.

It's all very well saying "they shouldn't have offered it in the first place"; but you could equally say, "you shouldn't have been borrowing so much in the first place!"


My main gripe is more a lack of respect; a generation who had free healthcare, good pensions, free education, and easy credit (which they abused!) now spends most of their time saying they don't want to pay for the next generations education, or healthcare, or build new houses for those trying to get on the ladder, because it will affect their own house price.

They even call the new generation lazy. Most young adults bum around at university don't they? What did the previous generation do at university then? Those who went at least. At least this generation will pay for it...

"Be nice to your children, they pick your care home".

"Be nice to your parents, they pick who gets their inheritance".

That only works if the inheritance is cash, not debt... In that case, the children pick the care home, pay for it, and pay the debt!

Frank the tank

cooldad wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I don't think that middle aged and old people have been sitting around saying "hahaha, now we're going to really mess things up for the young" - it's more like unintended consequences and an unrestrained free market.

I agree to a point. I just see it as the very wealthy are sufficiently insulated that it doesn't matter how cold this recession gets for the working masses, they'll be nice and warm, thank you very much.

Personally I think todays responsible youngsters have it really tough and I envy them not one jot.

The very wealthy have always been sufficiently insulated, except a few hundred years ago they could throw you in their dungeon if you annoyed them. Count yourself lucky.

Maybe a little revolution is in order - any old guillotines lying around?

A lot of the very wealthy/greedy have gotten that way by creating this mess we now find ourselvs in,that's what gets my goat. It's not the ordinary working man that has created the "black hole" the politians bang on about but it will , metaphorically speaking, be the corpses of the working man /woman that the black hole will be filled with.
I quite like the attitude the French populous are taking to their austerity measures and that's because they're on about putting the retirement age up to 62 :!:

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

"Be nice to your children, they pick your care home".

"Be nice to your parents, they pick who gets their inheritance".

That only works if the inheritance is cash, not debt... In that case, the children pick the care home, pay for it, and pay the debt!

You don't inherit debt. If your parents are skint the welfare pick up the care home costs. Only those with money have to pay and don't get me started on that.......
That means you are starting off from scratch, same as me.
Quit moaning and get on with it............

PS:- Yes, housing in this Country does need a re-think, and massive price drops but that won't go down well. Not well at all. Average house 2 1/2 times average salary should cover it, as it used to be.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

"Be nice to your children, they pick your care home".

"Be nice to your parents, they pick who gets their inheritance".

That only works if the inheritance is cash, not debt... In that case, the children pick the care home, pay for it, and pay the debt!

You don't inherit debt. If your parents are skint the welfare pick up the care home costs. Only those with money have to pay and don't get me started on that.......
That means you are starting off from scratch, same as me.
Quit moaning and get on with it............

http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/inde ... 6300D76306

If you inherit a property which has a mortgage, you'll be responsible for the monthly payments even if you don't live there. If the payments aren't made, the property could be repossessed and sold to pay off the mortgage.

rick_chasey

Anyway, I'm entitled to moan, since I am getting on with it!

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

"Be nice to your children, they pick your care home".

"Be nice to your parents, they pick who gets their inheritance".

That only works if the inheritance is cash, not debt... In that case, the children pick the care home, pay for it, and pay the debt!

You don't inherit debt. If your parents are skint the welfare pick up the care home costs. Only those with money have to pay and don't get me started on that.......
That means you are starting off from scratch, same as me.
Quit moaning and get on with it............

http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/inde ... 6300D76306

If you inherit a property which has a mortgage, you'll be responsible for the monthly payments even if you don't live there. If the payments aren't made, the property could be repossessed and sold to pay off the mortgage.

So the house gets sold off, you don't get any inheritance but you don't actually lose anything and you start from scratch which was my point. Or are you still staying with your parents?

Anyway, enough generalisations and mud slinging.

Can anyone tell me a decade when things were better than today, and why? Facts only.

finchy

daviesee wrote:

Can anyone tell me a decade when things were better than today, and why? Facts only.

If you're young (which this thread is about), the 1990s - houses were more affordable, the recession they had wasn't as bad.

You could graduate from university without being up to your eyeballs in debt.

(Purely subjective now) Better films and TV. Decent music could find its way into the top 10, instead of being marginalised.

daviesee

johnfinch wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Can anyone tell me a decade when things were better than today, and why? Facts only.

If you're young (which this thread is about), the 1990s - houses were more affordable, the recession they had wasn't as bad.

Mortgage rates at 15% and I would argue that the recession of the 90's was worse than this one - so far.

You could graduate from university without being up to your eyeballs in debt.

The only difference between now and then is tuition fees. They are only a small part of the huge debts to which people are alluding to, are only paid once you get a decent paid job and only apply to certain parts of the Country.

(Purely subjective now) Better films and TV. Decent music could find its way into the top 10, instead of being marginalised.

That is down to the youth of today. Only watch or buy the decent stuff and the rest will fade away. Generations will always argue about what is "good" but I will concede that there is much more trash around these days, mostly centred on voting programming but that again is supported mostly by the young.

finchy

daviesee wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Can anyone tell me a decade when things were better than today, and why? Facts only.

If you're young (which this thread is about), the 1990s - houses were more affordable, the recession they had wasn't as bad.

Mortgage rates at 15% and I would argue that the recession of the 90's was worse than this one - so far.

You could graduate from university without being up to your eyeballs in debt.

The only difference between now and then is tuition fees. They are only a small part of the huge debts to which people are alluding to, are only paid once you get a decent paid job and only apply to certain parts of the Country.

(Purely subjective now) Better films and TV. Decent music could find its way into the top 10, instead of being marginalised.

That is down to the youth of today. Only watch or buy the decent stuff and the rest will fade away. Generations will always argue about what is "good" but I will concede that there is much more trash around these days, mostly centred on voting programming but that again is supported mostly by the young.

Even the Labour party admitted that this is the worst, deepest recession since the war, and according to the ILO, unemployment is going to remain high for another 5 years. Also, how much government debt was built up during the 90s recession? Today's recession is going to have to be paid off for decades to come.

As for the student debts, you're right, they only apply to certain parts of the country - the parts containing 90% of the UK's population. The problem is that with house prices and rent, what was a decent salary in the 90s would now leave people struggling to get by, even if the cost of living has fallen in other areas. But the point is that people going to universities in the 90s wouldn't have started off their working life with a £20-30k debt. I went to university just before debts of this size became the norm, and I thank my lucky stars that I was born in 1980 and not 1990. You can argue about whether this is justifiable or not, but you must admit that going to university and not coming out owing £20-30k is far better than coming out owing £20-30k.

People of all ages watch trash, ring-us-up-and-tell-us-what-you-think TV, although I will admit that it started with the young and Big Brother.

As I've said already in this thread, it's far better to be young now than it was at other times in history, when people were herded into the army (again, the young paying for other people's f ups) or in other countries today. I am very grateful that I was born where and when I was. However, that doesn't mean that youth of today aren't justified in having a good whinge about being burdened with the gigantic debts built up just to give the middle-aged middle classes a fantasy of imaginary wealth during a decade of economic irrationality.

daviesee

This recession may well be the worst - on paper - but I haven't seen it affect people as hard as the 70s, 80s or 90s, yet. I agree with the debt and I think I know what will follow. This is feeling very similar to the last time Labour were in charge. Just think, Maggie seemed like a good idea in comparison.
Okay, I will agree that 20-30k debt coming out of Uni and facing a mortgage and pension payments must be daunting to say the least but a large part of that debt is lifestyle choice.
Going to a local Uni, staying at home and getting a part time job would set the young up for an easier start.
I will also agree on the fantasy imaginary wealth as I had been predicting the crash for years as it was blatently going to collapse. However there are also plenty of those in their 20s & early 30s who have perpetuated the situation. A crash is needed and that will only start by people refusing to pay asking prices. Apparently there are indications that this may be happening but it depends on who's report you read/believe.

Whingeing and moaning will never cease. Just wait till you are a grumpy old man. Then the moaning really begins :twisted:

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Okay, I will agree that 20-30k debt coming out of Uni and facing a mortgage and pension payments must be daunting to say the least but a large part of that debt is lifestyle choice.
Going to a local Uni, staying at home and getting a part time job would set the young up for an easier start.

You make out getting into university is easy.

If you want to get into the best university you can, and let's be honest, where you go matters hugely in the UK, then you have to travel. Very few people live near enough to a university that is the best they can get into.

As has been said before, part-time jobs are also not easy to get or find, especially when said employer can get someone who is currently unemployed and won't have the pressures of full-time education. < and they'd be right to!

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you want to get into the best university you can, and let's be honest, where you go matters hugely in the UK, then you have to travel. Very few people live near enough to a university that is the best they can get into.

Quite right. And to complicate things further, the quality of department is just as important a factor as the overall quality of the university.

Anonymous

I'm almost 40, worked hard since I was 16, never been on the dole. Got a degree whilst in full time work, have a beautiful family and a nice standard of living. You just have to strive for improvement if you want it. Saying that 1 generation have screwed it for the next is bollox, the world has never been so small and full of promise.
The money people, the top whatever per cent have tried to stuff it for the man on the street, aided and abetted by an inept Labour Government who forgot what they were about.

No one is starving. This is a different recession and consequence of crap management and arrogance by the top few in finance, business and government. Also a lot of help from the gutter press.

Even doleys have bang up to date mobiles and contracts, go figure. :?

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

This recession may well be the worst - on paper - but I haven't seen it affect people as hard as the 70s, 80s or 90s, yet. I agree with the debt and I think I know what will follow. This is feeling very similar to the last time Labour were in charge. Just think, Maggie seemed like a good idea in comparison.

Give it 6 months, after October 20....

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

This recession may well be the worst - on paper - but I haven't seen it affect people as hard as the 70s, 80s or 90s, yet. I agree with the debt and I think I know what will follow. This is feeling very similar to the last time Labour were in charge. Just think, Maggie seemed like a good idea in comparison.

Give it 6 months, after October 20....

What does your crstal ball show you, then ?

daviesee

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

This recession may well be the worst - on paper - but I haven't seen it affect people as hard as the 70s, 80s or 90s, yet. I agree with the debt and I think I know what will follow. This is feeling very similar to the last time Labour were in charge. Just think, Maggie seemed like a good idea in comparison.

Give it 6 months, after October 20....

What does your crstal ball show you, then ?

Well, if history does indeed repeat itself then.....

http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and- ... t-thatcher

"Thatcher’s first two years in office were not easy. Unemployment was very high, but the economy gradually showed improvement. She brought more of her supporters into the Cabinet, and bolstered her reputation by leading the country to war against Argentina in the Falkland Islands."

I predict an increase in terrorist threats.