"over 55's Lead Life Of The Young"..... And Enjoy A Nice Home!

[Guest AuntJess]

Article in todays Mirror. Have a read. I scanned it in so the least you could do is click. I even circled the pertinent point in red!

The article pushes the idea that todays over 55's are having a far better time than the young, including the ownership of a nice home.

Need I say more?

Anyone who bought before 1997 is 'enjoying a nice home' at a non-extortionate price, only the over 55's - if retired - are free to go on holiday.

Over 55's are also "more active in their communities". Anyone care to draw a negative inference from that?

If that poor old soul who was found dead after 5 years, had lived amongst 55 year olds, her death may not have gone unnoticed.

[nixy]

Not the point. This is about the value of essential assets, ie housing and shelter. By creating a system that allowed reckless borrowing, everyone who didn't or doesn't already own a home is forced into in reckless borrowing. And without the type of inflation in the 1970s, those debts never shrink.

Again its the boomer generation that have rigged this. Past generations of retirees were robbed of their efforts by inflation, as the wages of workers shot past their pensions. This isn't happening now, and in fact the young are probably seeing lower wages than the pension of most boomers. Of course this isn't sustainable, but the boomers will squeeze the pips until power moves to the next generation.

So..... obviously.........a 30 year old with massive debt, not being a 'boomer' is not part of the problem???

Blaming boomers now for some problem is about as useful (or convenient) as blaming Jews in the late 30s for some problem??

[corevalue]

Here's how to avoid that imbalance:

People will live longer, but they will work longer too, well past their sixties.

If they fail to do that, they will have a poor retirement, or have to rely heavily on their own children.

Isnt it obvious that we are headed that way?

There's one little problem with that Dr Bubb. With the current trend of reducing unemployment, finding and keeping a job past the age of 50.

[Bob8]

Anyone who bought before 1997 is 'enjoying a nice home' at a non-extortionate price, only the over 55's - if retired - are free to go on holiday.

Over 55's are also "more active in their communities". Anyone care to draw a negative inference from that?

If that poor old soul who was found dead after 5 years, had lived amongst 55 year olds, her death may not have gone unnoticed.

Sorry that so many of my generation seem so angry.

I did find it annoying in England, that as an educated man with major qualifications, responsible job etc, I could not really afford a car or foreign holiday, whilst there were various news programmes claiming people like me were spend thrift and ruining the economy.

However, there were many that had it far worse than these woes, which are really nothing of the sort. My impression is that the generation above, had a lot more optimism that things would get better. Now, people can be well qualified, hard working, but know their place is society is far more set.

Clearly though, the standard of living is far higher. Indeed, what people at twenty take for granted is a world away from what I expected at twenty (twelve yeasr ago). However, there are plenty at twenty who have no hope of aspiration and think whatever they do will make no difference (and they are pretty much right).

[Number79]

Thanks for a civil answer: so many aren't.

You see I DON'T blame your gen for crime: I blame 'the times' and the type of wet-nelly leadership we have, for which ALL voters are responsible.

I so agree with you as regards the much-beleaguered welfare state. One of my son's 'hobby horses' is the annual cost of the welfare state - 160 BILLION - and whilst I don't begrudge the needy, I DO begrudge the shiftless - who are 'bribed' with benefits, so none of them will commit criminal acts to get the money they refuse to work for.

My son is in his late thirties - locked out of house purchase by the madness which began whilst he was still studying - so I understand and sympathise with those in the same boat.

As to the disparity. It isn't owt to do with wages and inflation, but to do with the fact that when WE were young, we weren't able to earn at 21 what a 60 year old graduate professional did, Due to increments. It is more to do with SOME occupations being paid more than others, and a warning to those about to enter teaching...don't, if you want to be able to pay your way, as prices seem to be set at a two wage family and a well-paid, two-wage family.

This student of my OH was a pharmacist, who at 21 was earning what a 60 year old lecturer was earning.Neither of them in turn was earning what a GP earns. All of thrm graduates, some more 'worthy' of a good salary than others - it seems.

I also am saddened by the deterioration in civilised society and own that I lived in a working class poor area, but crime was not as high then as it is today - mainly 'cos there were serious consequences. We wern't always tripping over the "criminal's rights' charter.

It seems we that we agree on pretty much everything. As for the disparity issue and comparissons, I see that it is difficult because it was an age of juniors, apprentices and 'elders and betters' but guess that I am trying to compare the lives of those considered to be earning an adult wage.

You agree that prices are now set for double income families but could you answer the question that I asked before as I am trying to understand the shift in prices and lifestyles. When your husband was paying a mortgage on 2.5 times his salary, was there enough left over for you to live a comparable lifestyle? or was there little left and things were hard? What I am ultimately trying to understand is inflation and government meddling and if a second wage is now required as a result.

[corevalue]

Look at the quote in the last section of the article

Standard Life, which surveyed 2,100 adults, called on government and financial services to harness this optimism.

Head of Pensions John Lawson said: "This shift in attitudes spells the death of retirement as we know it

That is the odious part. My wife has an AVC (additional voluntary contribution) with Standard Life to top up her pension. The fund has dramatically dropped in value over the last couple of years, and also the value of the annuity she must buy with it to get a pension. Having basically stolen some of her money (the fund is now worth less than her contributions, in spite of all the "boom" years), the nasty John Lawson says our optimism could spell the end of retirement.

No John, it's your crap thieving company and the other banksters that are stealing peoples retirements! No wonder people looked at housing as a safe investment vehicle.

[Guest AuntJess]

It seems we that we agree on pretty much everything. As for the disparity issue and comparissons, I see that it is difficult because it was an age of juniors, apprentices and 'elders and betters' but guess that I am trying to compare the lives of those considered to be earning an adult wage.

You agree that prices are now set for double income families but could you answer the question that I asked before as I am trying to understand the shift in prices and lifestyles. When your husband was paying a mortgage on 2.5 times his salary, was there enough left over for you to live a comparable lifestyle? or was there little left and things were hard? What I am ultimately trying to understand is inflation and government meddling and if a second wage is now required as a result.

It was not easy for us to manage with me not working. I did things that many today think below them. There wasn't fast food so I made everything from scratch.if you wanted an afters for a meal you made a pudding. There were no handy yoghurt pots then. I made some of my own clothes and bought others from - then - cheap catalogues. I did not drink or smoke, We NEVER went out for meals, or concerts/shows, we drove an old banger and had no holidays. Just day trips or visits to relatives near the South coast. The one time we had a holiday in a four star hotel, my husband worked for 5 of the six weeks annual holiday in a factory, loading in a warehouse, for just one week's decent holiday. During the six-week leave which was the cause of great envy, he worked. He did marking for the exam boards for a bluddy pittance, and did ALL the jobs around the house, as we could not afford a tradesman's fees.If the old banger went out of commission, HE either mended it or we went on the bus. That simple.

I knitted and sewed and baked, filling a freezer that my mum treated me to. She also bought me a food mixer, to make my job easier.

There wasn't anything like the choice of food - fruit veg etc. I went into a grocers one day and asked for courgettes, and he said " you won't get them here luv, this is a carrot and turnip town" and told me that where he previously had a business - Wilmslow - they had a range of fresh fruit and veg. Sadly we could not afford to live anywhere NEAR Wilmslow.

I don't make out I was hard done to, but I don't also want to be told my life has been a doddle, either.

Edited July 5, 2009 by AuntJess

[Number79]

It was not easy for us to manage with me not working. I did things that many today think below them. There wasn't fast food so I made everything from scratch.if you wanted an afters for a meal you made a pudding. There were no handy yoghurt pots then. I made some of my own clothes and bought others from - then - cheap catalogues. I did not drink or smoke, We NEVER went out for meals, or concerts/shows, we drove an old banger and had no holidays. Just day trips or visits to relatives near the South coast. The one time we had a holiday in a four star hotel, my husband worked for 5 of the six weeks annual holiday in a factory, loading in a warehouse, for just one week's decent holiday. During the six-week leave which was the cause of great envy, he worked. He did marking for the exam boards for a bluddy pittance, and did ALL the jobs around the house, as we could not afford a tradesman's fees.If the old banger went out of commission, HE either mended it or we went on the bus. That simple.

I knitted and sewed and baked, filling a freezer that my mum treated me to. She also bought me a food mixer, to make my job easier.

There wasn't anything like the choice of food - fruit veg etc. I went into a grocers one day and asked for courgettes, and he said " you won't get them here luv, this is a carrot and turnip town" and told me that where he previously had a business - Wilmslow - they had a range of fresh fruit and veg. Sadly we could not afford to live anywhere NEAR Wilmslow.

I don't make out I was hard done to, but I don't also want to be told my life has been a doddle, either.

I hope that you were able to pass those skills on because I think that is the life that we will be returning to at the end of this. Although it was a harder life it seems that those things were done by you because you had the time not working. Things are now far more convenient and have come about and are afforded largely by a double income and growing economy. The dollar now has a spending power 38 times lower than it did in 1971 and I wonder how much less sterling is now really worth. I wonder if the debasement of our currency now requires a double income to tread water compared to earlier times. Comparissons are hard because times were different but I guess that you would feel that life were harder then but the stresses and strains are different now?

[nixy]

It was not easy for us to manage with me not working. I did things that many today think below them. There wasn't fast food so I made everything from scratch.if you wanted an afters for a meal you made a pudding. There were no handy yoghurt pots then. I made some of my own clothes and bought others from - then - cheap catalogues. I did not drink or smoke, We NEVER went out for meals, or concerts/shows, we drove an old banger and had no holidays. Just day trips or visits to relatives near the South coast. The one time we had a holiday in a four star hotel, my husband worked for 5 of the six weeks annual holiday in a factory, loading in a warehouse, for just one week's decent holiday. During the six-week leave which was the cause of great envy, he worked. He did marking for the exam boards for a bluddy pittance, and did ALL the jobs around the house, as we could not afford a tradesman's fees.If the old banger went out of commission, HE either mended it or we went on the bus. That simple.

I knitted and sewed and baked, filling a freezer that my mum treated me to. She also bought me a food mixer, to make my job easier.

There wasn't anything like the choice of food - fruit veg etc. I went into a grocers one day and asked for courgettes, and he said " you won't get them here luv, this is a carrot and turnip town" and told me that where he previously had a business - Wilmslow - they had a range of fresh fruit and veg. Sadly we could not afford to live anywhere NEAR Wilmslow.

I don't make out I was hard done to, but I don't also want to be told my life has been a doddle, either.

I knitted and sewed and baked

How many non boomers can do any of these today.

I'm going to have a wild guess, and say that 80% of 30 year olds did these 40 years ago, and 5% of 30 year olds do these today?

[Guest AuntJess]

How many non boomers can do any of these today.

I'm going to have a wild guess, and say that 80% of 30 year olds did these 40 years ago, and 5% of 30 year olds do these today?

Whatever the reason, nixy, there are a fair few on here, who will decide it is our fault that they don't do these things. And therein lies the real source of many of their problems. Blame someone else, then that takes away your responsibility for doing summat about it.

[thod]

I wonder if it down to the juvenilization of the elderly. They act like teenagers self-centred and believing they will live forever. They no longer see the community and the deaths in it and do not have the sense of how they may perish but the community survives. Thus they attempt to acquire for themselves, for it owns sake, without consideration of the system. They have inherited the assets of the previous generation as always happens. However they are now borrowing against the labour of those yet to be born. The idea is to 'me first', the debts they are arranging via the government borrowing have not been agreed to by those that will be expected to pay them off.

The problem is that just as they bred a generation to replace them, so that generation must do the same. This means the younger people must be able to buy housing in which to raise children and retain enough money to feed them. The elderly are defunct and the most expendable of all people. Things would continue if they all died tomorrow, a childless generation will end things for good. Yet the elderly have all the assets and all the power. They pass laws turning the young into debt slaves. The young are no able to start families of their own and are expected to spend their productive lives on paying for the elderly. Thus few are able to reproduce since they lack the resources, that or simply go on welfare. People have college debts, then they must save a deposit. By the time they have done this they are getting old themselves. Hence the age which pregnancy occurs rises and we have to import people from the third world.

What is needed is some responsibility, the old have to accept their own mortality, that what's different about the current elderly they don't understand they will be gone soon. Instead of attempting to grab everything and place debts, they need to set up a sustainable system. A system where the young can raise families because raising the next generation is more important than ensuring comfort for those soon to die.

[Guest AuntJess]

I wonder if it down to the juvenilization of the elderly. They act like teenagers self-centred and believing they will live forever. They no longer see the community and the deaths in it and do not have the sense of how they may perish but the community survives. Thus they attempt to acquire for themselves, for it owns sake, without consideration of the system. They have inherited the assets of the previous generation as always happens. However they are now borrowing against the labour of those yet to be born. The idea is to 'me first', the debts they are arranging via the government borrowing have not been agreed to by those that will be expected to pay them off.

The problem is that just as they bred a generation to replace them, so that generation must do the same. This means the younger people must be able to buy housing in which to raise children and retain enough money to feed them. The elderly are defunct and the most expendable of all people. Things would continue if they all died tomorrow, a childless generation will end things for good. Yet the elderly have all the assets and all the power. They pass laws turning the young into debt slaves. The young are no able to start families of their own and are expected to spend their productive lives on paying for the elderly. Thus few are able to reproduce since they lack the resources, that or simply go on welfare. People have college debts, then they must save a deposit. By the time they have done this they are getting old themselves. Hence the age which pregnancy occurs rises and we have to import people from the third world.

What is needed is some responsibility, the old have to accept their own mortality, that what's different about the current elderly they don't understand they will be gone soon. Instead of attempting to grab everything and place debts, they need to set up a sustainable system. A system where the young can raise families because raising the next generation is more important than ensuring comfort for those soon to die.

Nice sweeping denunciation of an agegroup of people, who have more intra-group differences, than inter-group differences with any other age group.

Until those with limited mentalities and chips on their shoulder grasp that fact, they will continue to be the prey of any and every con man, including tabloid hacks.

[this_prisoner_is_opting_out]

How many non boomers can do any of these today.

I'm going to have a wild guess, and say that 80% of 30 year olds did these 40 years ago, and 5% of 30 year olds do these today?

I'm a 35 year old woman and I have all these strings to my bow. I'm a child of the 70s - Aunt Jess had the luxury of a "cheap catalogue"? Jumble sales all the way for us. I turn lights off every time I leave the room - some things will never escape us. I have socks "waiting" to be darned... that'll be something to be done once we start getting powercuts haha.

However I haven't got a blinkin' clue how to tinker with the car and my 23 year old boyfriend doesn't know where to start with DIY type stuff. The under 25s are the ones whom I believe have really lost these skills. Those of us in our 30s were brought up on bugger all and can return to that - though it might pain us.

[mitchbux]

How many non boomers can do any of these today.

I'm going to have a wild guess, and say that 80% of 30 year olds did these 40 years ago, and 5% of 30 year olds do these today?

I'm one of the 5%.

Knitting is expensive, even with very cheap and nasty yarn, it's much cheaper to buy knitwear instead - except for baby clothes. For hand-knitting to 'save' you money, you have to look upon your handywork as a one-off 'designer' piece.

Sewing, it depends on what you are making. It is possible to save yourself a fortune by making your own curtains and blinds. Over a whole house you can make a large saving, even if you factor in the purchase of a decent sewing machine. When it comes to clothes then the price of fabric, like the price of knitting yarn, makes a comparison with 'designer' clothes necessary to 'save' money. My mum, like AJ, used to sew a lot of things. She, like me, only makes curtains now.

Cooking is the only one of the three where you can genuinely save yourself money, and get better quality at the same time. That said, some foods have to be compared on quality to get savings.

[Guest AuntJess]

I'm one of the 5%.

Knitting is expensive, even with very cheap and nasty yarn, it's much cheaper to buy knitwear instead - except for baby clothes. For hand-knitting to 'save' you money, you have to look upon your handywork as a one-off 'designer' piece.

Sewing, it depends on what you are making. It is possible to save yourself a fortune by making your own curtains and blinds. Over a whole house you can make a large saving, even if you factor in the purchase of a decent sewing machine. When it comes to clothes then the price of fabric, like the price of knitting yarn, makes a comparison with 'designer' clothes necessary to 'save' money. My mum, like AJ, used to sew a lot of things. She, like me, only makes curtains now.

Cooking is the only one of the three where you can genuinely save yourself money, and get better quality at the same time. That said, some foods have to be compared on quality to get savings.

I agree. The cost of yarns is disgraceful, same with material. There seems to be no way that stay-at-homes can benefit from having more time on their hands than a full-time employed person.

I would stipulate that I only bought cheap catalogue clothes. From a catalogue as I paid monthly and did not have to lay it all out at once. I used to moan that whilst I had the youthful figure I was forced to wear ok clothes, whereas when I got to be middle-aged and could afford better, I actually looked no better dressed.

A youthful figure can look great in a sack.

[Cinnamon]

A system where the young can raise families because raising the next generation is more important than ensuring comfort for those soon to die.

So, you're a firm believer into giving oldies ye olde sardonic grin, eh?

See, the reason people nowadays don't have kids is that it's messy, expensive and not much fun at all anymore due to an army of busybodies ready to indoctrinate your kids and to witchhunt you for trivialities.

Many people also choose to save for a pension instead of wasting the scarce resources on children who themselves are not likely to be loyal at all but abandon their parents into an institution. In fact, you have to have a screw lose to want children nowadays (respect to anyone who dares) and we should not be shocked at the low rate of reproduction but that there are some muppets to be found at all to buy into the bum deal of lifetime.

Also, the state is undermining families by taxing inheritance, so there is no point in building anything that only gets stolen by the taxman, it's smarter to spend it all, no-one can take away what you've consumed.

Remember, life is short and you're dead for a long time. Live it whilst it lasts.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Cinnamon

[corevalue]

I hope that you were able to pass those skills on because I think that is the life that we will be returning to at the end of this. Although it was a harder life it seems that those things were done by you because you had the time not working. Things are now far more convenient and have come about and are afforded largely by a double income and growing economy. The dollar now has a spending power 38 times lower than it did in 1971 and I wonder how much less sterling is now really worth. I wonder if the debasement of our currency now requires a double income to tread water compared to earlier times. Comparissons are hard because times were different but I guess that you would feel that life were harder then but the stresses and strains are different now?

We did not enjoy the cheapness of many luxuries back then. A colour telly at the end of the 60's was £250, about 5% of the cost of a house then. That would be £8000 today using house prices as a comparison basis, or £4000 if you use what I would consider "normal" house price levels!

The marked difference now is that my adult children seem to have an amazing life style, if I look at foreign travel, technology "toys", eating out, clothes, furniture. BUT, the downside is the ridiculous cost of houses, and the necessity for two incomes to support house purchase, seemingly, until the mortgage is paid off.

We worked longer "standard" weeks, but probably after overtime, it is still pretty much the same: the difference now, is the stress. It was quite normal to have two jobs when first married, but costs and wage inflation were such that after a few years, a family could be started. If you were low-income, there was council housing at a reasonable price, although there was a lot of demand and thus a long waiting list.

There was a lot of job security back then, jobs were "for life", there was such a thing as company loyalty - this evaporated during the Thatcher years. I think the workplace has become quite an unpleasant place since the introduction of US-based PC psychobabble management techniques, including the hated "self-assessment" rubbish. Back then, your manager had at least a veneer of competence, and he KNEW whether you were any good at your job, or not, he didn't have to get you to fill in a form to tell him. Come to think of it, we had BANK MANAGERS too, who KNEW whether you were a good risk to lend to, or not. Nothing like sitting in front of that big desk, and explaining to a po-faced Cap'n Mainwaring just why you needed that Porsche to straighten out a few aspirations.

[gotoutintime]

So, you're a firm believer into giving oldies ye olde sardonic grin, eh?

See, the reason people nowadays don't have kids is that it's messy, expensive and not much fun at all anymore due to an army of busybodies ready to indoctrinate your kids and to witchhunt you for trivialities.

Many people also choose to save for a pension instead of wasting the scarce resources on children who themselves are not likely to be loyal at all but abandon their parents into an institution. In fact, you have to have a screw lose to want children nowadays (respect to anyone who dares) and we should not be shocked at the low rate of reproduction but that there are some muppets to be found at all to buy into the bum deal of lifetime.

Also, the state is undermining families by taxing inheritance, so there is no point in building anything that only gets stolen by the taxman, it's smarter to spend it all, no-one can take away what you've consumed.

Remember, life is short and you're dead for a long time. Live it whilst it lasts.

Brilliant post cinnamon,

Nothing wrong with not reproducing if you can't afford it or don't want to bring children up in the stupid, big brother system we have to endure these days. If you prefer to have kids then best of luck to you....

Also agree that we need to build our own retirement pot and splash your cash to enjoy your later years, just leave treats to those who you think deserve it - and not the bl00dy government.

Edited July 5, 2009 by gotoutintime

[Si1]

the article is disingenuous as it is not very clear whom it means by 'over 55s' I took it to be very early (if at all) boomers, so roughly 55-60, if you can call them boomers at all. The thread is interesting, but along different lines to the article.

Corevalue - you have my sympathy and my concern. I think the private pensions industry has overcharged for many years. One of the saving graces of current under-35s, and a real one, and even something we should thank labour for, is the advent of genuinely low charging investment pension (stakeholders) and savings (ISAs) products. Unfortunately an awful lot of my own generation (25 to 35) have thrown that option away by stupidly paying a sodding fortune for houses that clearly aren't worth that much, and will instead be paying off a mortgage during years when they could instead be fruitfully saving whilst house prices fall, and indeed darning socks, making cookies or steak pies (in my case) or other things less expensive than a 150k mortgage.

[corevalue]

the article is disingenuous as it is not very clear whom it means by 'over 55s' I took it to be very early (if at all) boomers, so roughly 55-60, if you can call them boomers at all. The thread is interesting, but along different lines to the article.

Corevalue - you have my sympathy and my concern. I think the private pensions industry has overcharged for many years. One of the saving graces of current under-35s, and a real one, and even something we should thank labour for, is the advent of genuinely low charging investment pension (stakeholders) and savings (ISAs) products. Unfortunately an awful lot of my own generation (25 to 35) have thrown that option away by stupidly paying a sodding fortune for houses that clearly aren't worth that much, and will instead be paying off a mortgage during years when they could instead be fruitfully saving whilst house prices fall, and indeed darning socks, making cookies or steak pies (in my case) or other things less expensive than a 150k mortgage.

Thanks for the tea and sympathy but honestly, I don't need it (yet). MY concern is for my peers who fell for: shares as investment for retirement or their children's education, personal pensions, endowment mortgages, "equity withdrawal to fund a better lifestyle", and all the other manipulations the greed market pushed on a mostly unwitting population.

I only "fell" for the one scam, the personal pension, but I only put in enough to make it tax efficient, the rest I salted away in mutual BS in cash ISAs as far as possible. The BS, of course, have returned sure but steady growth, and serve my purpose well: all I seek is to protect my savings (which I need to live on from now on) from inflation. If there's any left over for the sprogs, they're lucky, I got nowt. Thing is though, representations are being made to the bank of Mum and Dad for house purchase loans, and I have to find a string of excuses long enough to forestall them...

[Guest AuntJess]

I hope that you were able to pass those skills on because I think that is the life that we will be returning to at the end of this. Although it was a harder life it seems that those things were done by you because you had the time not working. Things are now far more convenient and have come about and are afforded largely by a double income and growing economy. The dollar now has a spending power 38 times lower than it did in 1971 and I wonder how much less sterling is now really worth. I wonder if the debasement of our currency now requires a double income to tread water compared to earlier times. Comparissons are hard because times were different but I guess that you would feel that life were harder then but the stresses and strains are different now?

Cooking-wise I did, as my Mum became a professional cook whilst we were kids, despite being university material in her youth.

She worked her way up and studied -whilst skivying in large kitchens until she made it. She passed to me what I then passed down to my kids.

Knitting, - I was never a star, nor at dress-making and although I made a few decent outfits I was never the seamstress my Ma was - the job she was apprenticed to after leaving school. Her family were too poor to send her to uni. even tho' she was a VERY clever girl. When I think of all the gobbins being forced into HE today, to avoid making the job situation worse, my blood boils.

If you want to weep for a generation, weep for the women in my mother's. They had the roughest ride of the lot of us. Doing mindless jobs, whilst their brothers got an FE education and a good livelihood. Women destined always to serve rather than be served.

Sorta STILL on topic - as I am comparing generations.

[50sQuiff]

After reading another two pages of this thread..

Apparently just because we've got colour telly and microwave meals we should be eternally respectful to the boomers, who had to cope with corporation pop, knitting, rotten teeth and, er.. affordable high-quality housing, debt-free education and final salary pensions.

[smiffy1967]

The article pushes the idea that todays over 55's are having a far better time than the young, including the ownership of a nice home.

Need I say more?

Yes, another baby boomer bashing thread except what the article is actually about is not the favourable position of the elderly but deep rooted prejudice against them. With all the bile that is inevitable on this sort of thread I'm tempted to think that a lot of young people want it now, which is what I wanted when I was their age but, like them, was unable to have it. In thirty years time there will be forums like this in which the youngsters will be moaning about you!

well said, as an older member of the forum i agree.

[Guest AuntJess]

After reading another two pages of this thread..

Apparently just because we've got colour telly and microwave meals we should be eternally respectful to the boomers, who had to cope with corporation pop, knitting, rotten teeth and, er.. affordable high-quality housing, debt-free education and final salary pensions.

As usual one who wilfully misses the point - or is it that old favourite - "lack of comprehension skills"?

T'ain't about respect, but about the vitriole that a tabloid rag like this provokes. That is worrying.

[50sQuiff]

As usual one who wilfully misses the point - or is it that old favourite - "lack of comprehension skills"?

T'ain't about respect, but about the vitriole that a tabloid rag like this provokes. That is worrying.

Actually, as much as I agree with you about tabloid-induced vitriol, an article that raises this argument in the mainstream press is a rare thing indeed. It's absolutely taboo, comfortably repressed with tales of outdoor lavvies and cobbled streets.

Maybe check out my site (in sig) and come back to me on my comprehension skills.