gf3 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yes there is very little hope . This is not just a resession this is a change in Global economics and the destruction of many jobs due to advancing technology, coupled with a housing problem in this country that has never been addressed. I had dead end jobs when I left school between 1979 and 1985 , but I always had hope i went back to poor paying jobs for a year in 1989 again I had hope and the job situation changed for the better again . The young today have very little hope if they are in a dead end low payed job or no job . Never thought I would say it but in the last two years I am yearning to get older and collect my pension as the work place now is so so grim . For the young they have 45+ years of ever changing sh-t. It's sad to say I envy people at work who are older than myself and are already drawing a pension and a wage at the same time. With no mortgage they are bomb proof. It's bad when you are wishing your life away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) We'll have a decade of more economic decline/stagnation, and sometime in the 2020s the younger generations get more desperate in trying to sustain a good standard of living if we're going back to the 18th century, the unemployed masses get more violent with their demands and the regular suppression tactics by authorities fail; they use live rounds. Then revolution-cum-civil war. Edited February 19, 2011 by Big Orange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It's sad to say I envy people at work who are older than myself and are already drawing a pension and a wage at the same time. With no mortgage they are bomb proof. It's bad when you are wishing your life away. I know I spent my 30's wishing I was still in my 20's . The start of the 40's I did not give a dame either way and accepted the ageing process then by the 45th year I started wishing my time away untill the pension MADNESS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 There's one important factor that they don't have: hope. There was an optimism in the 50s and 60s that things were getting better. That seems to have been replaced by hopelessness and fear. So, back to the '70s ... But wasn't it '60s youth that most famously felt trampled upon and rebelled, dropped out, at the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yes, the scraps that the government allows youngsters to keep affords them nice video games and the occassional holiday, but this doesn't justify stealing 70% + of their production by levying heavy taxation and astronomical rents. Except, both tax and rents are much lower than a generation ago, relative to incomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Except, both tax and rents are much lower than a generation ago, relative to incomes. How do you work that out ? A generation ago more people than now had cheap council house rents. As for the tax : income tax went down but NI up and tax free allowances have not kept pace with inflation on more than a few occasions they have been frozen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 a baby boomer born 1950 and with a decent job would be looking at moving into their own house between 1970 and 1980 Indeed, I expect many of them would. Less so someone born ten years later, who might also be in the 'parents of today's young' generation, and a willetts-stupid-definition boomer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) How do you work that out ? A generation ago more people than now had cheap council house rents. As for the tax : income tax went down but NI up and tax free allowances have not kept pace with inflation on more than a few occasions they have been frozen. My own first professional job after graduating. Tax (including other deductions at source): 38.5% of gross income. Rent: 42.3% of gross income. Remainder: 19.2% of gross income (coincidentally, within £1/week of the level of the dole at the time, hence effectively rather less taking into account the costs of working). Try the equivalent rates on a middling new-graduate (good degree, top university) salary today. [edit to add] Oh, and yeah, I know about council houses. Having to pay for those was one reason taxes were so high. Edited February 19, 2011 by porca misèria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Renter Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 they end up in the public sector, delivering little of value Words fail me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Except, both tax and rents are much lower than a generation ago, relative to incomes. But the government actually provided useful services a generation ago, now all the hands on stuff has been outsourced to Circo. They owned a large portion of the housing stock as well as most of our key industries, and when Thatcher sold the lot off it the boomers acquired it all for bargain basement prices. A nice little earner. Compare that to the current situation, total tax take has gone up (50% of GDP) and what do we get in return for our money? Nothing. Which is why boomers have to point to China for our 'freebies', they know we're going to get zilch from the state because they've cleaned us out for the next generation or so. Edited February 19, 2011 by Chef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) My own first professional job after graduating. Tax (including other deductions at source): 38.5% of gross income. Rent: 42.3% of gross income. Remainder: 19.2% of gross income (coincidentally, within £1/week of the level of the dole at the time, hence effectively rather less taking into account the costs of working). Try the equivalent rates on a middling new-graduate (good degree, top university) salary today. [edit to add] Oh, and yeah, I know about council houses. Having to pay for those was one reason taxes were so high. Oh you know about council houses . Having to pay for those was one reason taxes were so high!! lol , HB due to the lack of council housing and people being put into private rented accomadation is costing far far more. As for the your own personnel figures on graduating that is just your experience and comparing it today with one other person. As I said Income tax went down , NI up and personnel allowances have dropped over the years . Thats just the taxes on income other taxes that have increased. Vat 1979 8.5 % increased to 15% that year 17.5% in 1991 and now 20%. Council tax that replaced the poll tax that replaced the rates UP . Stamp duty up and due to not enough index linking more and more people pay it who did not in the last generation. The lost allowances Married mans allowance GONE . Miras . GONE The new taxes Insurance tax , 5% vat on fuel Airport taxes . I think you will find taxes and rents have gone up not down. Edited February 19, 2011 by miko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Oh and one more new tax , the tax now charged on dividends received from shares held in pensions. Im sure there are other new taxes and other allowances that have dissapeared over the years maybe others can think of some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) He's 26. Not so many people can afford kiddies at that age except by making the leap to benefits. Perhaps what we need is a return to pre-feminist society. A woman needs to breed young(ish) or not at all, but a man should provide for his family, which he's much better-placed to do at 45 than at 25. Solution: financially-secure middle-aged men to take young brides! Trade fertility for security. My mother had me when she was 31. She was, relative to most of the other parents at school, freakishly old. Edited to add: She was divorced too. There was only one other kid in my class of 30 who did not have a father living at home. I was born in 1969. Things have changed so quickly! Edited February 20, 2011 by Tiger Woods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 My mother had me when she was 31. She was, relative to most of the other parents at school, freakishly old. I had my first baby at 28 (late 70s) and was by far the oldest on the ward. My notes had me down as an 'elderly' primigravida. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Its rational that the boomers would live a lot better than previous generations. Because between the late 1800's and the 1960's there was a 10X improvement in productivity. Combustion engines for farm combines and transportation.. electricity.. mass industrial production were some of the big advances. As that good post said since 1980 even at a ~1.8% a year productivity improvement which led to a 70% improvement in productivity in that time. Not as fast as during the first half of the twentieth century.. but still constant respectable progress. Just look at steel mills, container ports, automobile production, data handling progress over the last 30 years for examples. So today's young should be earning 70% more in real income than their parents at the same age. All else being equal, (like the richest 1% still getting the same percentage of the national income). Instead today's young are only making 50% of what their parents did in real terms. And falling fast. +100 It was this sort of analysis that led to the 70s predictions of us all working 3 day weeks etc., and it is a fair analysis. Problem is, people and greed get involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Just for historical reference and contrast, the average age of first marriage for a woman in Colyton, Devon between 1647-1719 was 30. It was 27 in the period before. Somewhat above average, but I also remember at university being told, to my surprise, that 27 was a typical age to marry in the pre-industrialised era. Part of the reason for this was that a large proportion of the population were dirt poor. They had to save during their 20s to afford the basics required for setting up home. As Izzy said above, the aristocracy were married off very young. I've always been of the opinion that age at first marriage (in Western Europe) is inversely correlated with the current "real" wealth of the society. We are returning to that era. THE POOR IN TUDOR TIMES With the rise in population jobs were not always easy to find. In Tudor times there were thousands of people without jobs wandering around looking for work. There were also disabled beggars. There were also people who pretended to be mad or disabled in order to beg. Tudor governments tolerated people who were disabled begging. However they did not tolerate able-bodied people without jobs wandering around. They saw such 'sturdy vagabonds' as a threat to law and order. Since the 14th century there had been laws against vagabonds but in 1530 a new law was passed. The old and disabled poor were to be given licences to beg. However anyone roaming without a job was tied to a cart in the nearest market town and whipped till they were bloody. They were then forced to return to the parish where they had been born or where they had lived for the last 3 years. A law of 1536 was more severe. Vagabonds were whipped the first time. However for a second offence they part of their right ear was cut off (so they could be easily identified wherever they went). For a third offence they were hanged. However officers of the law were reluctant to carry out such draconian measures. A law of 1547 chided them for 'foolish pity and mercy'. Under this law anyone who roamed or loitered for 3 days without a job must offer to work for any employer for any wages he was willing to pay. If nobody would employ him then he must offer to work just for food and drink. If he did not do this then anyone could take him to the Justice of the Peace (local magistrate). The vagabond was then made that person's slave for 2 years. If he ran away during that time he was branded and made a slave for life. This terrible law was abolished in 1550. Once again flogging was made the punishment for vagrancy. Furthermore every parish was commanded to build a workhouse for the old and disabled poor. They would be housed in the workhouse and made to do any work they were capable of. However in 1572 the law was made more severe again. For a first offence a vagabond would be whipped and burned in the right ear with a red-hot iron. (Unless some kindly employer was willing to give him a job). For a second offence he would be hanged (again unless an employer gave him a job). For a third offence he would be hanged regardless. In 1576 the law regarding the old and disabled was changed again. This time the parishes were ordered to supply them with materials like flax, hemp, wool and iron. They were to do any work they could in their own homes. Any old or disabled person who refused to work was sent to a House or Correction where conditions were very harsh. However in 1597 the death penalty for vagrancy was abolished. Edited February 20, 2011 by Tiger Woods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplevene Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 so population drops less competition for housing prices fall the young start breeding again population rises more competition for housing prices rise oooh fashion Population goes up - On benefits, more kids, bigger house More competition for housing - Fights between people on benefits to get the best house Prices rise - Buy to let is easy to get, more DSS landlords needed ooh fashion - It will be chick to be a slum landlord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4nclad Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 All the evidence does indeed show the boomers had it easier than the young. As a late 30 year old, I have a feeling I have missed the worst of it my the skin of my teeth. My parents moved into the house they're in now when they were 37 in 1984. It is a 3 bed detached in a fairly decent area in the north-west and they paid around £36k with about a £10 deposit. Both parents worked full time and my dad was a middle manager and mum in a mid level admin role. They finally paid the mortgage off with my dad's (happy) redundency in the late 90's and have lived a comfortable but not extravagant lifestyle since (largely off my dad's final salary pension which was paid out on redundancy). I do remember some painful times though in the 80's,early 90's, with my mum having to find additional work at the weekend, just to pay the mortgage (after the increase in interest rates), and the constant threat of redundancy (for them both) and the visible strain of the financial pressures they had to go through (and to be honest seeing what they went through really put me off debt for life). And something completely bizarre..we used to have "potato weeks". They would buy a huge sack of potatoes and you could have any tea you wanted, as long as it contained potatoes...... This year, I will be 37, hence the trigger to consider and compare my life and their life at the same age. I consider the job I have to be about the same level as my dad's. My wife works part time and is on a minimum wage and we have 2 kids (like my parents). I bought my first house at 25 and sold to rent at 30. With the money I "earned" from my property I invested (wisely) and have always lived a reasonable but frugal life, saving over 50% of my salary for at least the last 5 years. I would guess my parents house they bought at 37 is valued now at around £180k. I could more than buy that now, outright in cash and when I finally do buy, it will be a 4 bedroomed detached in a good area and in cash and not a "potato week" in sight. But the interesting thing is....once I buy, I will be living rent free, and in theory I can save a significant amount of cash until I retire, which I dream/hope to do at 55 which will be around the same age as my dad packed in work......but I am not convinced that even with all that saving, the capital that I will amass may well not pay as much income (in equivalent terms) as my dad gets on his final salary. So whilst I maybe ahead at the moment, I'm not convinced it will stay that way!....so in conclusion maybe the boomers do have it better than me....I also do feel complete sympathy for those about 5 years younger than me and less, the situation I am lucky enough to be in was partly down to the housing market. No skill involved there at all . I do feel I have maximized many of the opportunities that have come my way, but the catalyst was totally down to luck (i.e the generation I was born in). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.