Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
Certainly not as common, no. The facts show that. And anecdotally in my own world, none of my friends apart from the oprhaned hotshot M&A lawyer can afford the houses they grew up in and they're now the same age their parents were when they had them.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really think that not having enough money or space to have a family was not a common problem before your generation?
Commutes are longer, family houses are getting smaller, and overall earnings are expected to be less than their parents.
But again, this is all discussion is tangential to the debate > you want to argue that the grievances are legitimate or not. I am arguing that a) they are and b) even if they weren't, which they are, it doesn't matter.
Not being able to live how your parents did is pretty galling. It does not make for content voters and they will vote for change unless it is addressed. The mainstream parties in continental Europe refuse to address them so you get things like Wilders.
UK has a different system and the Tories have refused to address the problems so they have haemorrhaged young voters to the point polls have only 1% of under 25s voting for them. Same problem, expressed in a different political way because of a different system.0 -
Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.0 -
Rick - your generation wants things yesterday.
Your parents' and grandparents' generations saved before they made purchases of almost anything, from furniture to white goods to cars.0 -
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would0 -
Commute times have risen across the UK. that's a fact.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
The size of house for young families are the smallest they have been for 60 years. That's a fact.
You can argue this is all wrong and they need to suck it up fault but again, it's irrelevant.
it is considered amongst under 35s as a political failure of government. That's just factual. The lack of house building, the lack of job opportunities to match their skillset. That's all in the remit of governments.
Saying "oh the problems you think you have are trivial" is not a powerful political argument.0 -
You are obsessed by housing.rick_chasey said:
Certainly not as common, no. The facts show that. And anecdotally in my own world, none of my friends apart from the oprhaned hotshot M&A lawyer can afford the houses they grew up in and they're now the same age their parents were when they had them.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really think that not having enough money or space to have a family was not a common problem before your generation?
Commutes are longer, family houses are getting smaller, and overall earnings are expected to be less than their parents.
But again, this is all discussion is tangential to the debate > you want to argue that the grievances are legitimate or not. I am arguing that a) they are and b) even if they weren't, which they are, it doesn't matter.
Not being able to live how your parents did is pretty galling. It does not make for content voters and they will vote for change unless it is addressed. The mainstream parties in continental Europe refuse to address them so you get things like Wilders.
UK has a different system and the Tories have refused to address the problems so they have haemorrhaged young voters to the point polls have only 1% of under 25s voting for them. Same problem, expressed in a different political way because of a different system.
My FiL was a very successful banker and now lives a very comfortable life on his DB pension and yet the childhood stories are all about him using a weeks holiday every year to decorate or how they went to yorkshire very year on holiday to stay in a friends house.
My BiL law will not have a career as successful as him but both have a higher standard of living than he did at a comparable age.
The ability to pop out and buy a new washing machine on a credit card is such a fact of life for your generation that you place no value on it.
Relatively speaking the cheapest washing machine in the 1970s should cost £2k today and there was no easy credit so if yours broke you were down the launderette until you had saved up.
Have you ever experienced the drudgery of a launderette? there were 12,000 in the 1980s and only 3,000 now so it would imply your generation are x4 less likely to need one.0 -
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
0 -
SC, when do you think 18-35 year olds were born?
You might as well be talking about the Victorians and saying “be glad you don’t have to work in a factory aged 8 or risk being put in a poor house”.
We are all obsessed with housing. All of us. Do you know how much they cost?!0 -
FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't think SC appreciates how much more 18-35 year olds spend on housing compared to in the past.0
-
-
They need staff though.Dorset_Boy said:
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.0 -
FS firms with wholesale client bases will always need to be in the regions.Dorset_Boy said:
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
0 -
The life offices either moved out years ago or were never there. do they struggle for staff in their non-London facilities?TheBigBean said:
They need staff though.Dorset_Boy said:
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
and if what rick says about the commute and accommodation situation is true, wouldn't many prefer to do their jobs somewhere 15-30 minutes from home, with countryside on their doorstep?0 -
Obviously not. Family started in the 60s and most remained until the late 80s.rick_chasey said:
When was this PB? I presume it was not in the 90s.pblakeney said:FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.
It is an example of things that once were not easy getting better. We may be going back. 🤬The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sure, this is what I mean though. People keep talking about the 50s 60s and 80s. No under 35s remember the 80s - most were not even born in the 80s.pblakeney said:
Obviously not. Family started in the 60s and most remained until the late 80s.rick_chasey said:
When was this PB? I presume it was not in the 90s.pblakeney said:FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.
It is an example of things that once were not easy getting better. We may be going back. 🤬
So that's a useless point of reference. People compare their lives with the lives of their parents when they were growing up. That's normal.
0 -
that is our point, that life is immeasurablyeasier than when we were growing up.rick_chasey said:
Sure, this is what I mean though. People keep talking about the 50s 60s and 80s. No under 35s remember the 80s - most were not even born in the 80s.pblakeney said:
Obviously not. Family started in the 60s and most remained until the late 80s.rick_chasey said:
When was this PB? I presume it was not in the 90s.pblakeney said:FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.
It is an example of things that once were not easy getting better. We may be going back. 🤬
So that's a useless point of reference. People compare their lives with the lives of their parents when they were growing up. That's normal.
and I do not remember having an expectation that I would have a better lifestyle than my parents0 -
Following Brexit a number of firms looked at what they needed to do to comply with EU rules. The problem was that it was very difficult to get any of the staff to move to EU cities. It's the same issue with relocating in the UK or asking new staff to relocate to join your company. They just won't do it.Dorset_Boy said:
The life offices either moved out years ago or were never there. do they struggle for staff in their non-London facilities?TheBigBean said:
They need staff though.Dorset_Boy said:
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
and if what rick says about the commute and accommodation situation is true, wouldn't many prefer to do their jobs somewhere 15-30 minutes from home, with countryside on their doorstep?
0 -
You can't compare moving to a foreign country with relocating from London to Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Exter etc.TheBigBean said:
Following Brexit a number of firms looked at what they needed to do to comply with EU rules. The problem was that it was very difficult to get any of the staff to move to EU cities. It's the same issue with relocating in the UK or asking new staff to relocate to join your company. They just won't do it.Dorset_Boy said:
The life offices either moved out years ago or were never there. do they struggle for staff in their non-London facilities?TheBigBean said:
They need staff though.Dorset_Boy said:
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
and if what rick says about the commute and accommodation situation is true, wouldn't many prefer to do their jobs somewhere 15-30 minutes from home, with countryside on their doorstep?
All those millenials complaining of high transport and housing costs, and long commutes would surely be happy to move for a similar net income after those costs, and a far, far better quality of life. Management are just too scared to find out, or to egotistical.0 -
Sums up the internet.rick_chasey said:
Sure, this is what I mean though. People keep talking about the 50s 60s and 80s. No under 35s remember the 80s - most were not even born in the 80s.pblakeney said:
Obviously not. Family started in the 60s and most remained until the late 80s.rick_chasey said:
When was this PB? I presume it was not in the 90s.pblakeney said:FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.
It is an example of things that once were not easy getting better. We may be going back. 🤬
So that's a useless point of reference. People compare their lives with the lives of their parents when they were growing up. That's normal.
"Only my experience counts."The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Perhaps we're debating at cross purposes.pblakeney said:
Sums up the internet.rick_chasey said:
Sure, this is what I mean though. People keep talking about the 50s 60s and 80s. No under 35s remember the 80s - most were not even born in the 80s.pblakeney said:
Obviously not. Family started in the 60s and most remained until the late 80s.rick_chasey said:
When was this PB? I presume it was not in the 90s.pblakeney said:FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.
It is an example of things that once were not easy getting better. We may be going back. 🤬
So that's a useless point of reference. People compare their lives with the lives of their parents when they were growing up. That's normal.
"Only my experience counts."
I'm trying to illustrate why young people are becoming politically radicalised, and how it appears in their head.
Talking about life in the 50s or 80s is ancient history to them. The Britain you describe is alien to pretty much anyone under 35, so it's not a credible argument to them.
They don't want better living standards than the 70s. They want better living standards than the 00s!
Talking about the 60s, may as well be talking to you about the pre-war Victorians when you were in your 20s.0 -
It depends on the job, but not in a lot of the finance sector. Those people are also not moaning about London costs.Dorset_Boy said:
You can't compare moving to a foreign country with relocating from London to Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Exter etc.TheBigBean said:
Following Brexit a number of firms looked at what they needed to do to comply with EU rules. The problem was that it was very difficult to get any of the staff to move to EU cities. It's the same issue with relocating in the UK or asking new staff to relocate to join your company. They just won't do it.Dorset_Boy said:
The life offices either moved out years ago or were never there. do they struggle for staff in their non-London facilities?TheBigBean said:
They need staff though.Dorset_Boy said:
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
and if what rick says about the commute and accommodation situation is true, wouldn't many prefer to do their jobs somewhere 15-30 minutes from home, with countryside on their doorstep?
All those millenials complaining of high transport and housing costs, and long commutes would surely be happy to move for a similar net income after those costs, and a far, far better quality of life. Management are just too scared to find out, or to egotistical.0 -
You say that, I remember speaking to someone on the board of the Halifax arm of Lloyds Banking Group.Dorset_Boy said:
You can't compare moving to a foreign country with relocating from London to Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Exter etc.TheBigBean said:
Following Brexit a number of firms looked at what they needed to do to comply with EU rules. The problem was that it was very difficult to get any of the staff to move to EU cities. It's the same issue with relocating in the UK or asking new staff to relocate to join your company. They just won't do it.Dorset_Boy said:
The life offices either moved out years ago or were never there. do they struggle for staff in their non-London facilities?TheBigBean said:
They need staff though.Dorset_Boy said:
There realy is nothing preventing them from moving out of London, nothing.surrey_commuter said:
There are many industries where concentration is essential.Dorset_Boy said:Having a family has always been massively expensive. Nothing new there.
As for not being able to live close to work - well that may be true if you have made the choice to work in London. However that really isn't the case for most of the rest of the country.
There is of course the issue that there has been far too much encouragement to keep employment in London. There really is no need to have such a concentration of financial services firms in London, and there are plenty of very successful firms without a London base that prove that.
If FS firms could move to somewhere cheaper then they would
However it is a herd and egotistical prestige thing that keeps them there.
All trading is electronic. Many of the companies they invest in are not London based, They don't need to be able t pop down to a trading floor to do deals.
Invesco for example have been outside London for about 25 years I believe. There is also a reasonably thriving FS sector in Bristol.
and if what rick says about the commute and accommodation situation is true, wouldn't many prefer to do their jobs somewhere 15-30 minutes from home, with countryside on their doorstep?
All those millenials complaining of high transport and housing costs, and long commutes would surely be happy to move for a similar net income after those costs, and a far, far better quality of life. Management are just too scared to find out, or to egotistical.
The board had reluctantly agreed to relocate the HQ from Halifax to Leeds because the labour market was so poor in Halifax.
0 -
I've come up with a theory as to why things seem screwed up.rick_chasey said:
Perhaps we're debating at cross purposes.pblakeney said:
Sums up the internet.rick_chasey said:
Sure, this is what I mean though. People keep talking about the 50s 60s and 80s. No under 35s remember the 80s - most were not even born in the 80s.pblakeney said:
Obviously not. Family started in the 60s and most remained until the late 80s.rick_chasey said:
When was this PB? I presume it was not in the 90s.pblakeney said:FWIW, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom house was the norm when I was growing up.
I knew a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom, and they weren't the exception in catholic families.
It is an example of things that once were not easy getting better. We may be going back. 🤬
So that's a useless point of reference. People compare their lives with the lives of their parents when they were growing up. That's normal.
"Only my experience counts."
I'm trying to illustrate why young people are becoming politically radicalised, and how it appears in their head.
Talking about life in the 50s or 80s is ancient history to them. The Britain you describe is alien to pretty much anyone under 35, so it's not a credible argument to them.
They don't want better living standards than the 70s. They want better living standards than the 00s!
Talking about the 60s, may as well be talking to you about the pre-war Victorians when you were in your 20s.
Millennials can't remember anything pre-90s so everything since the 90s seems normal.
Since the 90s housing has not been normal, amongst other things. #warpedperceptionThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
I thought that was irrelevant?rick_chasey said:
That's 30 years > it's a long time.pblakeney said:
Since the 90s housing has not been normal, amongst other things. #warpedperception
Like the gap between the war and the 70s. It's a long long time.
In 30 years you had 2 world wars.
#cherrypickingThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ahem.surrey_commuter said:
I have a relatively slow day so am happy to have a civilised debate.rick_chasey said:
This sounds very much like you sticking your fingers in your ears about this election result.surrey_commuter said:
every generation has thought that.rick_chasey said:
Sure. I do think the under 35s are really overlooked across the West.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Yeah, very few parties were challenging the status quo and Wilders has answers that are challenging it.briantrumpet said:Thanks @rick_chasey - doesn't bode well for the future, as that generation is going to be around a long time, and if their views don't change, things could get spicy politically.
And, as we know from Brexit, trying to sell the status quo ("It's a bit shït, but the alternatives are shitter") isn't very sexy or exciting.
the only difference with the "entitled" millenials was that they had social media to broadcast it
Firstly a) perception is reality in politics. and b) this is the first generation since the war to expect lower living standards than the previous generation.
I reckon our differences are over measuring living standards.
Millenials (for me) are on the whole much better off than their parents because of the reduction in price of nearly everything from consumer goods to travel. The ££ cot of a flight is less than it was 40 years ago and they will be getting on the plane with a computer in their pocket. They will also get to the airport in a car that starts on a cold morning and does not have a tendency to break down.
These improvements have come about from megatrends such as globalisation and tech leaps.
Individually they may or may not be better off than their parents but that will be down to their own choices.
So my point is that without future mega trends benefiting the UK I see no reason why any generation should expect to be better off than their parents.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeah it is, that's exactly what I'm saying. Can you imagine when you were in your 20s, so presumably what, the 70s, with people banging on about the war all the time?pblakeney said:
I thought that was irrelevant?rick_chasey said:
That's 30 years > it's a long time.pblakeney said:
Since the 90s housing has not been normal, amongst other things. #warpedperception
Like the gap between the war and the 70s. It's a long long time.
In 30 years you had 2 world wars.
#cherrypicking
It's not unreasonable for young people to have shorter time frames. And even beyond the perception, the reality is real.
under 35s spend 3x what their grandparents did on housing. The realities of commutes etc are real, because that's what the combination of the labour market and the housing market offer.
These are problems that need to be solved. If they're not addressed, they will become more radicalised.0 -
That chart is fascinating. Who'd have thought the Thatcher/Major years were so good, or indeed the Wilson/Callaghan years, including as they did the IMF bailout?rjsterry said:
Ahem.surrey_commuter said:
I have a relatively slow day so am happy to have a civilised debate.rick_chasey said:
This sounds very much like you sticking your fingers in your ears about this election result.surrey_commuter said:
every generation has thought that.rick_chasey said:
Sure. I do think the under 35s are really overlooked across the West.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Yeah, very few parties were challenging the status quo and Wilders has answers that are challenging it.briantrumpet said:Thanks @rick_chasey - doesn't bode well for the future, as that generation is going to be around a long time, and if their views don't change, things could get spicy politically.
And, as we know from Brexit, trying to sell the status quo ("It's a bit shït, but the alternatives are shitter") isn't very sexy or exciting.
the only difference with the "entitled" millenials was that they had social media to broadcast it
Firstly a) perception is reality in politics. and b) this is the first generation since the war to expect lower living standards than the previous generation.
I reckon our differences are over measuring living standards.
Millenials (for me) are on the whole much better off than their parents because of the reduction in price of nearly everything from consumer goods to travel. The ££ cot of a flight is less than it was 40 years ago and they will be getting on the plane with a computer in their pocket. They will also get to the airport in a car that starts on a cold morning and does not have a tendency to break down.
These improvements have come about from megatrends such as globalisation and tech leaps.
Individually they may or may not be better off than their parents but that will be down to their own choices.
So my point is that without future mega trends benefiting the UK I see no reason why any generation should expect to be better off than their parents.
I'm also genuinely curious as to why the Cameron/May era was so bad as I don't recall inflation, growth or tax rises being particularly bad.
The big question though is whether the step-change post-Blair is Brexit or GFC.
It's also somewhat disingenuous of commentators to omit reference to the pandemic in current Parliament. The impact of printing all that money to pay people to do nothing has to have some impact. Not saying it was a bad thing. The alternative was probably much worse. But it's definitely a thing.0 -
It was a thing. So was the '73 oil crisis. Rather puts 'remember the 3-day week and rubbish piling up in the streets' into perspective though.wallace_and_gromit said:
That chart is fascinating. Who'd have thought the Thatcher/Major years were so good, or indeed the Wilson/Callaghan years, including as they did the IMF bailout?rjsterry said:
Ahem.surrey_commuter said:
I have a relatively slow day so am happy to have a civilised debate.rick_chasey said:
This sounds very much like you sticking your fingers in your ears about this election result.surrey_commuter said:
every generation has thought that.rick_chasey said:
Sure. I do think the under 35s are really overlooked across the West.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Yeah, very few parties were challenging the status quo and Wilders has answers that are challenging it.briantrumpet said:Thanks @rick_chasey - doesn't bode well for the future, as that generation is going to be around a long time, and if their views don't change, things could get spicy politically.
And, as we know from Brexit, trying to sell the status quo ("It's a bit shït, but the alternatives are shitter") isn't very sexy or exciting.
the only difference with the "entitled" millenials was that they had social media to broadcast it
Firstly a) perception is reality in politics. and b) this is the first generation since the war to expect lower living standards than the previous generation.
I reckon our differences are over measuring living standards.
Millenials (for me) are on the whole much better off than their parents because of the reduction in price of nearly everything from consumer goods to travel. The ££ cot of a flight is less than it was 40 years ago and they will be getting on the plane with a computer in their pocket. They will also get to the airport in a car that starts on a cold morning and does not have a tendency to break down.
These improvements have come about from megatrends such as globalisation and tech leaps.
Individually they may or may not be better off than their parents but that will be down to their own choices.
So my point is that without future mega trends benefiting the UK I see no reason why any generation should expect to be better off than their parents.
I'm also genuinely curious as to why the Cameron/May era was so bad as I don't recall inflation, growth or tax rises being particularly bad.
The big question though is whether the step-change post-Blair is Brexit or GFC.
It's also somewhat disingenuous of commentators to omit reference to the pandemic in current Parliament. The impact of printing all that money to pay people to do nothing has to have some impact. Not saying it was a bad thing. The alternative was probably much worse. But it's definitely a thing.
It is also looking at change relative to the start of each parliament, not relative to each other. In that sense, there probably was more room for improvement in the 80s.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
