The Lost Generation

[Markxjr]

Really? One phone call revealed that one top 4 chain pays more for night work.

[ken_ichikawa]

Really? One phone call revealed that one top 4 chain pays more for night work.

Nightshift jobs MAY pay £10000 an hour, but this is moot if they are not hiring, but the Asda and morrisons jobs I saw paid NMW for the night shift identical to that of the day shift.

[TGP]

OK now I've got to weigh in as this is winding me up.....

First, the idiot in the lead article is just an upper-middle class whiner..... and as far as I can see not that representative of my generation (I'm 32 BTW, renting, enough deposit to get in if I wanted to on a 90-85% LTV).

Student grants going on holidays to NY ? That sounds to me like a guy who was eating and had a roof over his head out of daddy's pocket. And a 2:2 ? What did he expect with a 2:2 ? Companies swooning at his feet and offering him champagene and caviar to be their tea boy ?

My student loans went on bread and a roof ..... and, yes, beer (but as I recall out-of-date beer bought in bulk from the students dodgy-offie).

And while I do sympathize with the poor buggers who are graduating this year....... it's worth recalling that I spent 3 years working in factories before I even went to uni...... then graduated (with an IT degree) the year the web-bubble bust....... stayed on and paid (with a £3k gift from my parents) to do an MSc...... then spent another year working in data entry (with a 1st and an Msc) before finally landing an entry level IT job that (after 6 years work) has turned into a mid-level IT job. Thats 4 years crappy employment + 4 years additional education to get my "foot in the door" to a lower-middle class occupation.

It was no picnic....... but I suspect it was a lot easier than the path my parents took to the same place (half-a-dozen o-levels between them, 20 years of self-employment).... and I never expected anything but a ride as rough as this one. The guy in the lede thought he was going to have it easy, well more fool him.

I think the article writer, and some of the other respondents on this thread, are mixing "generational problems" with "class problems". As I see it, it wasn't the baby boomers I know that screwed me over.......... the working class BB who worked their asses off to be the first generation to actually own their own home...... It was the upper-middle class BB'ers that screwed us. The ones buying their 2nd or 3rd home...... the ones with the funds available to buy 4 houses in order to let them to poor buggers like me...........the ones that won the "parent lottery" in the 60's and 70's to the point that they were a shoe-in for the low number of university places, which made them a shoe in for the low number of high paid jobs, which made them a shoe in for benefitting from the bubbles...... the people that had the capital, financial knowledge and parental support to play the market fully to their advantage.

It's as much a "class" thing as a generational thing. The working class BB'ers do not (by and large) own 5 homes, 3 they are letting plus their first and second homes. But, of course, the writer in the article wouldn't recognise a class issue if it sh*t in his merlot..... being, as he is, one of the primary beneficiaries of the class divideThis kids daddy probably financed his kids university "pocket money" with a BTL that I was frikking letting from him !!!!

This kid had it easy.......To the point where spending his student loan on NY trips and duck-down jackets seemed natural to him (it certainly didn't to me). I find it hard to have sympathy with him considering the fact I was working a 40-hour week in order to pay his daddy the cash that his daddy then blew on making Tarquin's journey through univeristy as easy as possible.

As far as I can see....... I really have it no better, and no worse, than my parents did by and large. We all had to work hard........ he's crapping his nappy because he expected to get the easy ride his parents did and he's "only" getting a ride half that easy.

The issue isn't the BB'ers as a whole............ it seems to me to be that the RICHER minority in the BB'ers generation that have so thoroughly screwed everyone else.

Whatsmore, the moaning from MY generation isn't our generation as a whole.........by and large it's the children of the rich BB'ers that are moaning, no-one else. If I had been born in the 70's I wouldn;t have gone to uni, and I would (most likely) be in a worse situation than I am today because of it.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

Whatsmore, the moaning from MY generation isn't our generation as a whole.........by and large it's the children of the rich BB'ers that are moaning, no-one else. If I had been born in the 70's I wouldn;t have gone to uni, and I would (most likely) be in a worse situation than I am today because of it.

Yours,

TGP

The actual legitimate boomer bashing comes from the huge debts they are leaving behind afaik.

While the last generation may have "worked damn hard to get what they had" they also "routinely voted for politicians who borrowed like a mother******er and wasted all the cash" to get what they had and expect the kids to pay for it via higher taxes, student debt etc. The last (several) generations have all basically had ferraris and helicoptors on tick and the current generation is being handed the bill.

it's really more to do with the insane monetary/state system than anythng else.

As for kids having a wacky, out of kilter view of what the working world is like - why not ask where hey got that idea from?

it's not like you are born expecting anything, now is it?

(Hint - Politicians, Teachers, Mummy and Daddy made sme stupid assumptions based on their own childhoods and then convinced the kids. Anyway you cut it. it's still the previous generations responsibility, if not fault.)

[Haventaclue]

Jeeeez, talk about selective ignorance. The boomer bashing coming from the generation of students who invented buying a pint on a credit card.

This should have been titled the 'entitled generation thread'.

Get over yourselves. Wake up and cope with the disappointment that you're grown up now and responsible for paying your own bills.

The 'boomers' whatever generation, did just that. This generation is a completely new phenomena of whining entitled babies. Do your homework and you'll realise that the cost of buying a property, the 'cost' of saving for a pension, has been far higher for the generations before you, than it is for you today. The 3 x income argument is completely irrelevant. It cost me 40% of my income 30 years ago to buy a house. Today its 25% for the same house.

The boomers, if they were sensible enough to SAVE, (just thought Id throw that now rarely used word in) had a choice of buy a house OR have a car. Not both. And certainly the only expectation was to have one week a year away camping in Wales. This generation expect to have it all. Its this generation that are making 'renting', a lower class, victim status. We all rented, whats the problem? There isnt one, except a the 'lost generation' that want and 'expect' to own a place in their 20's.

Boomers didnt have access to private pension managers, ISA's, financial planning, etc and the wonderfull www 'compare the market' facilities that you guys do. We were/are completely reliant on a state managed retirement, from a state that has subsequently sold off its assets.

You have the control of avoiding that pitfall. Boomers didnt, and to add insult to injury, are then subject to the state stealing their one and only hard earned asset to pay for their elderly care. If you calculate how much the government have raised in the compulsory purchase of vulnerable, elderly peoples homes, you'll find the 'boomers' have more than paid for all their health care and pension rights privately. Boomers didnt spend 50 years paying their higher taxes (than you pay) and their NI, and their mortgages off (at an average of 10%) for this to happen.

The only saving grace I can gleam from this thread is, in light of the bile being spewed on here, Id prefer the state to get my house in my old age, rather than you unworthy lot of bitter self-entitled babies.

[Injin]

Jeeeez, talk about selective ignorance. The boomer bashing coming from the generation of students who invented buying a pint on a credit card.

This should have been titled the 'entitled generation thread'.

Get over yourselves. Wake up and cope with the disappointment that you're grown up now and responsible for paying your own bills.

The 'boomers' whatever generation, did just that.

No, they didn't - they put it all on tick for their kids to pay for.

This generation is a completely new phenomena of whining entitled babies. Do your homework and you'll realise that the cost of buying a property, the 'cost' of saving for a pension, has been far higher for the generations before you, than it is for you today. The 3 x income argument is completely irrelevant. It cost me 40% of my income 30 years ago to buy a house. Today its 25% for the same house.

An you had it inflated away, not that this is the argument at all. The argument is that the last two generations have consistently voted in politicians who put everything on the never never and the bill is now due.

The boomers, if they were sensible enough to SAVE, (just thought Id throw that now rarely used word in) had a choice of buy a house OR have a car. Not both. And certainly the only expectation was to have one week a year away camping in Wales. This generation expect to have it all. Its this generation that are making 'renting', a lower class, victim status. We all rented, whats the problem? There isnt one, except a the 'lost generation' that want and 'expect' to own a place in their 20's.

Sorry, but they didn't. The boomers via the magic of FRB borrowed far more than they ever put by. They also failed completely to clean up any of the political, economic environmental or other systems they are leaving behind. What they are leaving behind is a well-on-it's-way-to-fascist state, declining oil, huge debts, the responsibility of paying for boomers pensions (somehow) etc etc

All the bills are coming due at once and it's to people who never got to go to the party.

Boomers didnt have access to private pension managers, ISA's, financial planning, etc and the wonderfull www 'compare the market' facilities that you guys do. We were/are completely reliant on a state managed retirement, from a state that has subsequently sold off its assets.

Because you voted in Maggie/Reagan/whoever. Good job!

Y

ou have the control of avoiding that pitfall. Boomers didnt, and to add insult to injury, are then subject to the state stealing their one and only hard earned asset to pay for their elderly care. If you calculate how much the government have raised in the compulsory purchase of vulnerable, elderly peoples homes, you'll find the 'boomers' have more than paid for all their health care and pension rights privately. Boomers didnt spend 50 years paying their higher taxes (than you pay) and their NI, and their mortgages off (at an average of 10%) for this to happen.

That's right, boomers didn't spend 50 years paying higher taxes. They voted in people who promised low, low taxes and who instead borrowed to fund the massive state that the boomers voted for.

The only saving grace I can gleam from this thread is, in light of the bile being spewed on here, Id prefer the state to get my house in my old age, rather than you unworthy lot of bitter self-entitled babies.

It will.

And you'll ge nothing.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Injin

[Si1]

Jeeeez, talk about selective ignorance. The boomer bashing coming from the generation of students who invented buying a pint on a credit card.

This should have been titled the 'entitled generation thread'.

Get over yourselves. Wake up and cope with the disappointment that you're grown up now and responsible for paying your own bills.

The 'boomers' whatever generation, did just that. This generation is a completely new phenomena of whining entitled babies. Do your homework and you'll realise that the cost of buying a property, the 'cost' of saving for a pension, has been far higher for the generations before you, than it is for you today. The 3 x income argument is completely irrelevant. It cost me 40% of my income 30 years ago to buy a house. Today its 25% for the same house. [you thick thick person]

The boomers, if they were sensible enough to SAVE, (just thought Id throw that now rarely used word in) had a choice of buy a house OR have a car. Not both. And certainly the only expectation was to have one week a year away camping in Wales. This generation expect to have it all. Its this generation that are making 'renting', a lower class, victim status. We all rented, whats the problem? There isnt one, except a the 'lost generation' that want and 'expect' to own a place in their 20's. [entire paragraph is b*llocks]

Boomers didnt have access to private pension managers, ISA's, financial planning, etc [yes they did - fool] and the wonderfull www 'compare the market' facilities that you guys do. We were/are completely reliant on a state managed retirement, from a state that has subsequently sold off its assets. [incorrect]

You have the control of avoiding that pitfall. Boomers didnt, and to add insult to injury, are then subject to the state stealing their one and only hard earned asset [!] to pay for their elderly care. If you calculate how much the government have raised in the compulsory purchase of vulnerable, elderly peoples homes, you'll find the 'boomers' have more than paid for all their health care and pension rights privately. Boomers didnt spend 50 years paying their higher taxes (than you pay) and their NI, and their mortgages off (at an average of 10%) for this to happen.

The only saving grace I can gleam from this thread is, in light of the bile being spewed on here, Id prefer the state to get my house in my old age, rather than you unworthy lot of bitter self-entitled babies.

this post makes you look so ignorant and stupid, highlights in bold

you *don't * even * understand * simple * inflation/ir tautology *!!!!. really really really foolish

also - Boomers 50 years paying taxes? - state pension entitlement comes after 44 years, what a strange thing you are making up here. did you pay high taxes on your paper round or something when you were 12?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Si1

[huw]

And who was discriminating against those female, black, gay Catholics?

Henry VIII was an early ring-leader (not many blacks in England back then, but he had a good go at the rest!)

[D.C.]

Boomers didnt have access to private pension managers, ISA's, financial planning, etc and the wonderfull www 'compare the market' facilities that you guys do. We were/are completely reliant on a state managed retirement, from a state that has subsequently sold off its assets.

You have the control of avoiding that pitfall. Boomers didnt, and to add insult to injury, are then subject to the state stealing their one and only hard earned asset to pay for their elderly care. If you calculate how much the government have raised in the compulsory purchase of vulnerable, elderly peoples homes, you'll find the 'boomers' have more than paid for all their health care and pension rights privately.

Really? Show us those calculations.

Last time I checked, over 70% of the NHS budget went on elderly care but the NHS raises money from taxes. If you had 'more than paid for' all of your healthcare shouldn't the NHS be deriving a big chunk from some magical sovereign wealth fund that your hard work created instead of from taxes on the younger workers?

And as for state pensions being 'more than' fully funded... Are you seriously going to try and make that one fly?

[DeepLurker]

...

The 'boomers' whatever generation, did just that. This generation is a completely new phenomena of whining entitled babies. Do your homework and you'll realise that the cost of buying a property, the 'cost' of saving for a pension, has been far higher for the generations before you, than it is for you today. The 3 x income argument is completely irrelevant. It cost me 40% of my income 30 years ago to buy a house. Today its 25% for the same house.

...

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

Because where I live (Herts) a 2-bed terrace on a IO mortgage (!) will cost around 60% of my income (and according to stats I'm in the top 20% of earnings) so I'd love to move to somewhere in the UK where I can buy a house for 25% of earnings

PS By a 'house', I don't mean a flat in Moss Side thank you very much

[the gardener]

Henry VIII was an early ring-leader (not many blacks in England back then, but he had a good go at the rest!)

Including Henry VIII in the Boomer generation is stretching it a bit.

[Haventaclue]

Si1, Injin, LMAO! You're dissapearing up your own backsides with your arguments.

Are you bitter about the boomers because theyre currently living mortgage free, debt free, have a decent asset, and have sensibly cut their cloth to afford reasonable holidays and cars now, whilst you sit whinging in your rented bedsit? Or are you claiming its the boomers that currently owe millions on tick? Think you'll find its the former. B*stard boomers, how dare they pay off their personal debts. Oh and just incase you keep missing the obvious, we didnt pay our debts back on a BOE base rate of 0.5%........ which is the option you have today. Youy are funny funny guys.

[Si1]

Including Henry VIII in the Boomer generation is stretching it a bit.

you're just being ungrateful now, you have Boomers to thank for the the whole of modern British history and you won't even recognise it

[Injin]

Si1, Injin, LMAO! You're dissapearing up your own backsides with your arguments.

Are you bitter about the boomers because theyre currently living mortgage free, debt free, have a decent asset, and have sensibly cut their cloth to afford reasonable holidays and cars now, whilst you sit whinging in your rented bedsit?

No, I feel sad for them, with their soon to be bankrupcies, no pensions and remainign future wiped out by hyperinflation and state failure.

but my emotional state doesn't change the facts either way. It's not relevent.

Or are you claiming its the boomers that currently owe millions on tick? Think you'll find its the former. B*stard boomers, how dare they pay off their personal debts. Oh and just incase you keep missing the obvious, we didnt pay our debts back on a BOE base rate of 0.5%........ which is the option you have today. Youy are funny funny guys.

Nom the boomers consistently voted in politicians who didn't tax them to pay for the things they used, and instead borrowed. That borrowing is now due to be paid by the current generation of taxpayers, just as the boomers shuffle off into retirement. If the boomers had paid for the things they voted for, then this discussion wouldn't be happening, nor house prices so high.

This is the historical fact of the matter - you can address it any time you like.

[thedebtisreal]

This fighting is pointless. All this could be resolved with just one policy. No politician has the balls to enforce it. And my generation are too stupid to demand it.

A land tax.

(Has the amusing side affect of lumbering kingsgate with a crippling tax bill)

[Radge]

And there was me thinking the deficits went ballistic when we 'had to' bail out the banks because of what the whizz-kid bankers had been up to. Deficits were approaching zero by 2000 and public debt was at an all-time low. It was the yoof who were the debt jukies with the credit cards and 'exclusive, 'executive' pads.

But hey, feck it - go and buy another pint on your credit card and blame a wrinkly. It's far easier than facing up to the fact that you are a whining waster.

[chris25]

Get over yourselves. Wake up and cope with the disappointment that you're grown up now and responsible for paying your own bills.

The 'boomers' whatever generation, did just that. This generation is a completely new phenomena of whining entitled babies. Do your homework and you'll realise that the cost of buying a property, the 'cost' of saving for a pension, has been far higher for the generations before you, than it is for you today. The 3 x income argument is completely irrelevant. It cost me 40% of my income 30 years ago to buy a house. Today its 25% for the same house.

What a load of ****

The boomers were the ones who thought they were entitled to everything for nothing.

Had the boomers not striked in the car/shipping/steel/manufacturing industries then perhaps we'd have a slightly better economy now days. All striking because they thought they were entitled to more.

Had the boomers not asset stripped every remaining company (the latest being Cadburys) and sold it for their benefit. Not for the benefit of the nation or future generations. BUT ONLY TO FILL THEIR GREEDY POCKETS, then perhaps things would be different. All these companies asset stripped, closed down or flogged off because of mismanagement by the boomers, but they thought they were entitled to the money they made from ruining industry.

Had you not adamantly supported parties and policies that rapidly brought in the unsustainable welfare state then I would have more respect for boomers. But you supported the benefits, free this and that- all because you thought you were entitled to it.

[Si1]

And there was me thinking the deficits went ballistic when we 'had to' bail out the banks because of what the whizz-kid bankers had been up to. Deficits were approaching zero by 2000 and public debt was at an all-time low. It was the yoof who were the debt jukies with the credit cards and 'exclusive, 'executive' pads.

But hey, feck it - go and buy another pint on your credit card and blame a wrinkly. It's far easier than facing up to the fact that you are a whining waster.

so people who are currently 25 were guilty, at the age of 15, of developing the deficit.

well said.

[Haventaclue]

Really? Show us those calculations.

Last time I checked, over 70% of the NHS budget went on elderly care but the NHS raises money from taxes. If you had 'more than paid for' all of your healthcare shouldn't the NHS be deriving a big chunk from some magical sovereign wealth fund that your hard work created instead of from taxes on the younger workers?

And as for state pensions being 'more than' fully funded... Are you seriously going to try and make that one fly?

Here are the stats for 2007/2008 (the latest available). In 2007/2008 over 55000 (thats 55 thousand!) elderly persons went into residential care and were subject to a compulsory orders on their property. Only 700 of those cases had the compulsory order 'defered' to a later date. Councils will not release the actual £ values they raised on sales of properties, so we can only take a guess at how much 54300 properties were worth, in that one year alone! These statistics are NOT the total number of elderly going into care. This 55000 are only the ones who had property that the councils could steal. htp://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/01/day_28/full_council_list.htm

[Injin]

And there was me thinking the deficits went ballistic when we 'had to' bail out the banks because of what the whizz-kid bankers had been up to. Deficits were approaching zero by 2000 and public debt was at an all-time low. It was the yoof who were the debt jukies with the credit cards and 'exclusive, 'executive' pads.

But hey, feck it - go and buy another pint on your credit card and blame a wrinkly. It's far easier than facing up to the fact that you are a whining waster.

Really?

The US had $91 trillion in unfunded laibilities..before the crisis. it;s the same story everywhere in the west, tbh - massive commitments promised to be paid to the boomer generation now and in the future with no cash bar taxes or rentier seeking behaviours to pay them from.

I;d like to ask those on the other wide of the boomer arguent to make a choice though -

Either

1) The boomers are generally shite parents whioh have taught the current generation incredibly poorly

or

2) The boomers really have handed the current generation a bag of shit to deal with

One of them (at least!) has to be true.

[Si1]

Si1, Injin, LMAO! You're dissapearing up your own backsides with your arguments.

Are you bitter about the boomers because theyre currently living mortgage free, debt free, have a decent asset, and have sensibly cut their cloth to afford reasonable holidays and cars now, whilst you sit whinging in your rented bedsit? Or are you claiming its the boomers that currently owe millions on tick? Think you'll find its the former. B*stard boomers, how dare they pay off their personal debts. Oh and just incase you keep missing the obvious, we didnt pay our debts back on a BOE base rate of 0.5%........ which is the option you have today. Youy are funny funny guys.

you're an idiot

[Si1]

Here are the stats for 2007/2008 (the latest available). In 2007/2008 over 55000 (thats 55 thousand!) elderly persons went into residential care and were subject to a compulsory orders on their property. Only 700 of those cases had the compulsory order 'defered' to a later date. Councils will not release the actual £ values they raised on sales of properties, so we can only take a guess at how much 54300 properties were worth, in that one year alone! These statistics are NOT the total number of elderly going into care. This 55000 are only the ones who had property that the councils could steal. htp://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/01/day_28/full_council_list.htm

so what you're saying is that boomers not only fecked over following generations, but previous ones (the elderly) too

nice

Edited February 2, 2010 by Si1

[Rhysling]

Its this generation that are making 'renting', a lower class, victim status. We all rented, whats the problem? There isnt one, except a the 'lost generation' that want and 'expect' to own a place in their 20's.

The proportion of first-time buyers in the UK aged under 25 fell from 30 per cent in 1990 to 18 per cent in 2008, reaching a low of 16 per cent in 2003. (Figure 10.16)

Between 1988 and 2008 deposits for first-time buyers in the UK tended to rise each year, increasing from 12 per cent to 22 per cent of purchase price, and with a peak of 23 per cent in 2003. (Figure 10.20)

Between 1971 and 2007 there was a 38 per cent increase in the number of dwellings in Great Britain, from 18.8 million to 25.9 million, exceeding the increase in the number of households. (Figure 10.1)

Between 1997/98 and 2008/09, the proportion of households accepted as homeless in England because family and friends were unable or unwilling to accommodate them increased from 26 per cent to 37 per cent, reaching a peak of 38 per cent in 2005/06. (Figure 10.8)

In 2007/08, 68 per cent of owner-occupiers in England were very satisfied with their current accommodation, compared with 49 per cent of social renters and 47 per cent of private renters. (Table 10.13)

The average house price in the UK was 12.5 per cent lower in the first quarter (Q1) of 2009 than in Q1 2008. This is the largest annual decline since the series began in 1969. (Figure 10.18)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2304

[chris25]

And there was me thinking the deficits went ballistic when we 'had to' bail out the banks because of what the whizz-kid bankers had been up to. Deficits were approaching zero by 2000 and public debt was at an all-time low. It was the yoof who were the debt jukies with the credit cards and 'exclusive, 'executive' pads.

But hey, feck it - go and buy another pint on your credit card and blame a wrinkly. It's far easier than facing up to the fact that you are a whining waster.

We only became dependent upon the banks because the boomers ruined any other industries left.

the credit binge was down almost entirely to the housing market. Who's fault was that? The "yoof" or the boomers?

[Haventaclue]

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

Because where I live (Herts) a 2-bed terrace on a IO mortgage (!) will cost around 60% of my income (and according to stats I'm in the top 20% of earnings) so I'd love to move to somewhere in the UK where I can buy a house for 25% of earnings

PS By a 'house', I don't mean a flat in Moss Side thank you very much

You go work it out. It applies to any house. Yes Im in the north, but the same comparity works wherever you are. If you're paying 60% of your income now for the area you wish to live in, youll find that that your 'property' ancestor paid an equivalent/higher % than you for your same house. You just have to make sure that you calculate the value of your current earning to its equivalent value in lets say 1965 / 1975 whenever, and the 'cost' of the mortgage at that time. Interest rates have NEVER been this low at anytime in our history.