The generation blame.
Comments
-
-
-
ellieb wrote:I consider blind nationalism to be ideological.
& what the boomers did was ideological: They believed that what they were doing was going to make society better for everyone.
Huh? How exactly?
_______________________
Just pointing out the obvious really - why would you give your money for the greater good when there are likely to be absolutely minuscule returns - direct or indirect. And of course how do you know if other people will do it?
Sacrificing your own money for the greater good - that's basically communism, well only if you are forced.0 -
As a baby boomer, I would just like to point out that my parents' generation was so hung up on everything the Daily Mail looks back at wistfully and argues for the return of (king and country, authority, class, manners, respectability blah blah blah) that they ended up collectively blowing the sh1t out of each other (not to mention the national budget) on two wars to end all wars (the arrogance of it!), a thermonuclear arms race and a considerable amount of genocide. They then moved on with their repressed sexuality to (presumably accidentally) give birth to a new generation, a large number of whom they then physically and sexually abused for their twisted relief. :evil:
No wonder we had punk rock, the me generation and retail therapy!
I think my kids are brilliant and am sure that they will look back on us with the same disdain but for different reasons. At least I bl00dy well hope so!
Oooh that feels better!
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:daviesee wrote:From the first article:-
"However, property owners and savers are behaving in a way that undermines the UK's economic progress. We need a government that refuses to pander to their fears. We need a government that takes their money and invests for everyone's future."
I think we can come to conclusions over the writer's political views.
In all my years of being under this Countries Governments, of both main parties, it is my view that they don't have a clue. Giving them MY money to decide what do with it does not appeal one iota.
You do that every time you pay tax don't you?
Yes but the implication was to take even more and share the wealth.
Russia tried that for a while. How did that work out?
Anyway. No-one gave me anything so if I don't leave anything, tough. Get over it.
These baby boomers will die one day leaving their children with the vastly over priced property. Will they be moaning then?
Property is only worth what someone will pay. Stop paying over the odds and the prices will drop.
Or is the moaning now mostly just because you can't have it all, right now?
Here is a tip. The boomers worked hard and were mostly skint till mid-life. This is normal and will happen to you too. Look forward to it.
Too many thoughts, questions, contradictions and opinions :? :? :? :?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So no-one thinks the writer of said articles has a point?
Or the Adam Smith institute?
I think anyone in this society only has their wealth because we have a society with rules and norms. Some people have done very well out of society, some were born with advantages possibly rich parents possibly being born at the right time.
I do think people who have done well should be paying more back into society - not saying bleed the rich dry but there are people who have done very nicely over the last decades and they should pay a bigger share because even if they have earnt the money it's only the fact we have a society that has allowed them to do so and that allows them to enjoy their wealth. But I think making a big deal out of this inter generational divide is wrong. The vast majority (well over 90%) of baby boomers never attended university, huge numbers of them are not looking at comfortable retirement, do not have huge equity tied up homes.
I know you are playing devil's advocate a bit but I'll bite anyway and say the previous few decades haven't been quite the land of milk and honey you are making out. By all means make those who have done well out of society put a bit more back but it's not primarily a generational thing.
Moving on a bit - for me this country has lost a lot more than cheap houses and free education which seems to be your primary complaint. Does seem like you are fairly money motivated so do you think you'd be doing any different to the baby boomers who are feathering their own nests had you been born a few decades earlier ?
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
daviesee wrote:Yes but the implication was to take even more and share the wealth.
Russia tried that for a while. How did that work out?
Russia went from being an under-developed peasant economy in 1917 to being the first country to put a man into space within a few decades.
This despite a revolution, a civil war and the loss of about 10% of its population and the destruction of major cities in World War 2.
All the while it was paying for a huge police state and military.
I'm not saying that we should have a Soviet-style economy, just that the idea that the USSR was a complete disaster is false.0 -
johnfinch wrote:I'm not saying that we should have a Soviet-style economy, just that the idea that the USSR was a complete disaster is false.
Want to try telling that to the millions of his own population that Stalin "took care of"?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
johnfinch wrote:daviesee wrote:Yes but the implication was to take even more and share the wealth.
Russia tried that for a while. How did that work out?
Russia went from being an under-developed peasant economy in 1917 to being the first country to put a man into space within a few decades.
.....to being the first peasant economy to put a man into space....
Bob0 -
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:I'm not saying that we should have a Soviet-style economy, just that the idea that the USSR was a complete disaster is false.
Want to try telling that to the millions of his own population that Stalin "took care of"?
:roll: I'm not coming out in support of Stalin.
Look at life in Russia before the revolution though, it was hardly a barrel of laughs then.0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:daviesee wrote:From the first article:-
"However, property owners and savers are behaving in a way that undermines the UK's economic progress. We need a government that refuses to pander to their fears. We need a government that takes their money and invests for everyone's future."
I think we can come to conclusions over the writer's political views.
In all my years of being under this Countries Governments, of both main parties, it is my view that they don't have a clue. Giving them MY money to decide what do with it does not appeal one iota.
You do that every time you pay tax don't you?
Yes but the implication was to take even more and share the wealth.
Russia tried that for a while. How did that work out?
Anyway. No-one gave me anything so if I don't leave anything, tough. Get over it.
These baby boomers will die one day leaving their children with the vastly over priced property. Will they be moaning then?
Property is only worth what someone will pay. Stop paying over the odds and the prices will drop.
Or is the moaning now mostly just because you can't have it all, right now?
Here is a tip. The boomers worked hard and were mostly skint till mid-life. This is normal and will happen to you too. Look forward to it.
Too many thoughts, questions, contradictions and opinions :? :? :? :?
When you say you were given nothing....
How about free education? How about an excellent pension that's based on a notion you'll likely live 10 years less than you actually do? The bill that will be paid by the generation who is still working. How about the longest sustained period of economic growth ever experienced? How about all that cheap credit? Or the money people got just by owning houses and restricting supply in the face of growing demand to help their own property investment?
As for your 'property is only worth what soemone will pay'. It isn't quite that simple. It's a function of supply and demand, and that doesn't take into account who is buying. Homeowners like to restrict demand in their area to protect their own investment, and many people now have 2nd homes. There is a current generation who could have bought a property on their equivalent wage 30 years ago who now are nowhere near that.
The selfish, lack of care for the future generation beyond their own offspring is what is really scandalous.0 -
Bob - do go on.0
-
The selfish, lack of care for the future generation beyond their own offspring is what is really scandalous.
& what are you doing at the moment for the generation to follow you?
The oil is going to run out. India & China will be the economic powerhouses & the UK will not be able to compete without a sweatshop economy. I take it that you feel it is appropriate for your generation to bear the burden for what is to come.0 -
ellieb wrote:The selfish, lack of care for the future generation beyond their own offspring is what is really scandalous.
& what are you doing at the moment for the generation to follow you?
The oil is going to run out. India & China will be the economic powerhouses & the UK will not be able to compete without a sweatshop economy. I take it that you feel it is appropriate for your generation to bear the burden for what is to come.
I don't vote NIMBY politics, I went with my parents to the meeting where they've discussed plans for more "affordable" housing in their area and registered my support for it, (we no longer get the parish news as a result), I've paid off my student loan and tuition fee and I earn good money, all of which I declare to the tax man.
I do what I can! So nerr.
Then again, i'm in my early 20s, so there's not much I can do.0 -
And how many of your generation grew up without central heating, with outside toilets, maybe without a bath ? How many of you left school at 14 ? How many had corporal punishment in school ? How many went to university compared to the few percent in previous generations ? How many have had to do really hard physical work for long hours and work your saturday mornings too ?
I'm not saying that a proportion of the baby boomer generation did very well and that part of it was down to when they were born but you are generalising massively. Yes maybe if you are someone that would have gone to uni anway and got a decent job with a pension then you've lost out compared to a generation born within 10-15 years of each other - but then maybe you'll be luckier than people being born now - who knows.
Again your only concerns seem to be materialistic - no mention of the loss of freedoms children of the 60s and 70s took for granted, no mention of the countryside lost to development - so would you really have done any different to the people you are criticising.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
The selfish, lack of care for the future generation beyond their own offspring is what is really scandalous.[/quote]
Education? - i got the same free high school education as is available today.
Excellent pension? - Where? Not that I know of that I haven't paid into and that is only in the past 2 years.
Longest sustained growth? How about 3 recessions and made redundant 8 times.
Cheap credit? How about interest rates above 10%.
Housing money? I need a house to live in. What it is worth is of no meaning to me.
Housing supply? If you can't afford it don't buy. I was 32 before I went on the property ladder.
Protecting your investment? Shockarooney! How do you expect people to act? I suspect you will be similar at some point.
Many people have 2 homes? Who are these people? No-one I know. The vast majority don't.
Buying a house based on salary? Good idea. it should be enforced as it was when I was a young 'un.
Lack of care for the next generation? Most boomers will consider their house their inheritance and legacy for their children. That is caring.
I am more concerned about the care of the elderly that are going to provide that inheritance if the selfish youth of today are anything to go by. Hence, I am making sure that I can take care of myself. The care part is raising the children properly with good values and more will follow in my inheritance. No guilt, no apologies.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:And how many of your generation grew up without central heating, with outside toilets, maybe without a bath ? How many of you left school at 14 ? How many had corporal punishment in school ? How many went to university compared to the few percent in previous generations ? How many have had to do really hard physical work for long hours and work your saturday mornings too ?
I'm not saying that a proportion of the baby boomer generation did very well and that part of it was down to when they were born but you are generalising massively. Yes maybe if you are someone that would have gone to uni anway and got a decent job with a pension then you've lost out compared to a generation born within 10-15 years of each other - but then maybe you'll be luckier than people being born now - who knows.
Again your only concerns seem to be materialistic - no mention of the loss of freedoms children of the 60s and 70s took for granted, no mention of the countryside lost to development - so would you really have done any different to the people you are criticising.
It's not a comparison of which generation had it worse off. It's what people of the boomer age are doing now, and what they have done. They are currently in the position to decide how things are run, and are choosing a way which benefits them the most and the youngest the least.
That is the issue.0 -
We're in a bit of a kerfuffle that's for sure.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:And how many of your generation grew up without central heating, with outside toilets, maybe without a bath ? How many of you left school at 14 ? How many had corporal punishment in school ? How many went to university compared to the few percent in previous generations ? How many have had to do really hard physical work for long hours and work your saturday mornings too ?
I'm not saying that a proportion of the baby boomer generation did very well and that part of it was down to when they were born but you are generalising massively. Yes maybe if you are someone that would have gone to uni anway and got a decent job with a pension then you've lost out compared to a generation born within 10-15 years of each other - but then maybe you'll be luckier than people being born now - who knows.
Again your only concerns seem to be materialistic - no mention of the loss of freedoms children of the 60s and 70s took for granted, no mention of the countryside lost to development - so would you really have done any different to the people you are criticising.
It's not a comparison of which generation had it worse off. It's what people of the boomer age are doing now, and what they have done. They are currently in the position to decide how things are run, and are choosing a way which benefits them the most and the youngest the least.
That is the issue.
But you keep on comparing the past - cheap housing, free university tuition, good pensions - to now. If you don't want to make it a comparison then stop comparing then and now.
Seems to me what you really object to is the division of wealth which means those who are comfortably off (who may happen to be disproportionately baby boomers) not sharing sufficiently in their good fortune/just rewards (delete as applicable). It's a question of class dressed up as one of generational conflict.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:And how many of your generation grew up without central heating, with outside toilets, maybe without a bath ? How many of you left school at 14 ? How many had corporal punishment in school ? How many went to university compared to the few percent in previous generations ? How many have had to do really hard physical work for long hours and work your saturday mornings too ?
I'm not saying that a proportion of the baby boomer generation did very well and that part of it was down to when they were born but you are generalising massively. Yes maybe if you are someone that would have gone to uni anway and got a decent job with a pension then you've lost out compared to a generation born within 10-15 years of each other - but then maybe you'll be luckier than people being born now - who knows.
Again your only concerns seem to be materialistic - no mention of the loss of freedoms children of the 60s and 70s took for granted, no mention of the countryside lost to development - so would you really have done any different to the people you are criticising.
It's not a comparison of which generation had it worse off. It's what people of the boomer age are doing now, and what they have done. They are currently in the position to decide how things are run, and are choosing a way which benefits them the most and the youngest the least.
That is the issue.
But you keep on comparing the past - cheap housing, free university tuition, good pensions - to now. If you don't want to make it a comparison then stop comparing then and now.
Seems to me what you really object to is the division of wealth which means those who are comfortably off (who may happen to be disproportionately baby boomers) not sharing sufficiently in their good fortune/just rewards (delete as applicable). It's a question of class dressed up as one of generational conflict.
Yes. Quite possibly.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:And how many of your generation grew up without central heating, with outside toilets, maybe without a bath ? How many of you left school at 14 ? How many had corporal punishment in school ? How many went to university compared to the few percent in previous generations ? How many have had to do really hard physical work for long hours and work your saturday mornings too ?
I'm not saying that a proportion of the baby boomer generation did very well and that part of it was down to when they were born but you are generalising massively. Yes maybe if you are someone that would have gone to uni anway and got a decent job with a pension then you've lost out compared to a generation born within 10-15 years of each other - but then maybe you'll be luckier than people being born now - who knows.
Again your only concerns seem to be materialistic - no mention of the loss of freedoms children of the 60s and 70s took for granted, no mention of the countryside lost to development - so would you really have done any different to the people you are criticising.
It's not a comparison of which generation had it worse off. It's what people of the boomer age are doing now, and what they have done. They are currently in the position to decide how things are run, and are choosing a way which benefits them the most and the youngest the least.
That is the issue.
Honestly, I think myself lucky and you should too. You are in your early 20's, what you are moaning about pales into insignificance had you been born in the Sudan or Ethiopia. Count yourself very very fortunate to whinge about this stuff, being born in the Northern hemisphere of developed countries is a happy fate, Look at how much we waste, we have plenty. Just apply a little perspective.
Your excellent education has made you sound quite insensitive and dismissive, which I know you are not, just trying to reset what we should be thankful for, look at the good stuff.
0 -
dmclite wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:And how many of your generation grew up without central heating, with outside toilets, maybe without a bath ? How many of you left school at 14 ? How many had corporal punishment in school ? How many went to university compared to the few percent in previous generations ? How many have had to do really hard physical work for long hours and work your saturday mornings too ?
I'm not saying that a proportion of the baby boomer generation did very well and that part of it was down to when they were born but you are generalising massively. Yes maybe if you are someone that would have gone to uni anway and got a decent job with a pension then you've lost out compared to a generation born within 10-15 years of each other - but then maybe you'll be luckier than people being born now - who knows.
Again your only concerns seem to be materialistic - no mention of the loss of freedoms children of the 60s and 70s took for granted, no mention of the countryside lost to development - so would you really have done any different to the people you are criticising.
It's not a comparison of which generation had it worse off. It's what people of the boomer age are doing now, and what they have done. They are currently in the position to decide how things are run, and are choosing a way which benefits them the most and the youngest the least.
That is the issue.
Honestly, I think myself lucky and you should too. You are in your early 20's, what you are moaning about pales into insignificance had you been born in the Sudan or Ethiopia. Count yourself very very fortunate to whinge about this stuff, being born in the Northern hemisphere of developed countries is a happy fate, Look at how much we waste, we have plenty. Just apply a little perspective.
Your excellent education has made you sound quite insensitive and dismissive, which I know you are not, just trying to reset what we should be thankful for, look at the good stuff.
A lot of truth in that, sure we could do some things better but there are still folk who risk their lives to get here so it can't be that bad. It's when boat loads are heading in the other direction you need to worry.0 -
This 'Baby Boomer' tag is another USA import bolted onto we British whether it fits or not. There is a case that the United States enjoyed an unprecedented era of prosperity in the second half of the tentieth century. Britain, not so much so. A ruinous war and a heavily indebted peace left Britain with a pale version of the transatlantic dream. I enjoyed free education and full employment but that faded as the decades rolled on. This century is a worse scenario as the success of big business in avoiding paying taxes whilst buying labour at the lowest possible price advances.
Whatever I have, I have paid for and will continue paying for with disproportionate taxation and distorted returns on savings and investments. When I die my children will inherit, after tax; in the meantime I provide financial assistance, with gifts and attendance. I do not expect praise but I do not deserve blame.
BTW I do miss Teagar, they say that this Rick bloke is similar but not to me. Too smug by half. Teagar had passion and commitment and a 'wind-up' score of 11 The older I get the faster I was0
