Boomer deaths = millennial joy

[winkie]

There are people in their 50s and 60s still working, also looking after elderly parents sometimes with dementia with 20 somethings still living at home.

[PeanutButter]

20 minutes ago, winkie said:

Very many now do not have basic courtesy skills, for a start drivers on the roads push in, don't give way, on the pavements pedestrians push others out of the way, don't acknowledge them, walk at them, too busy looking into phone......fewer people seem to form an organised queue when waiting for something..... lack of patience, ignorance, hear less of the please and thank you for anything, grunt, snatch and demand......no longer a polite society, plenty of rudeness out there......

Courtesy is proportional to population density.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636191/

 

In a 1962 edition of Scientific American, the ecologist John B Calhoun presented the results of a macabre series of experiments conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).1 He had placed several rats in a laboratory in a converted barn where – protected from disease and predation and supplied with food, water and bedding – they bred rapidly. The one thing they were lacking was space, a fact that became increasingly problematic as what he liked to describe as his “rat city” and “rodent utopia” teemed with animals. Unwanted social contact occurred with increasing frequency, leading to increased stress and aggression. Following the work of the physiologist, Hans Selye, it seemed that the adrenal system offered the standard binary solution: fight or flight.2 But in the sealed enclosure, flight was impossible. Violence quickly spiralled out of control. Cannibalism and infanticide followed. Males became hypersexual, pansexual and, an increasing proportion, homosexual. Calhoun called this vortex “a behavioural sink”. Their numbers fell into terminal decline and the population tailed off to extinction. At the experiments’ end, the only animals still alive had survived at an immense psychological cost: asexual and utterly withdrawn, they clustered in a vacant huddled mass. Even when reintroduced to normal rodent communities, these “socially autistic” animals remained isolated until death. In the words of one of Calhoun’s collaborators, rodent “utopia” had descended into “hell”.3

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited January 27, 2019 by PeanutButter

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited January 27, 2019 by PeanutButter

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited January 27, 2019 by PeanutButter
dupe

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited January 27, 2019 by PeanutButter
dupe

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited January 27, 2019 by PeanutButter
dupe

[winkie]

4 hours ago, spyguy said:

Your B and C are the resonse i used to hear when i lived in West London m4 corridor.

The reality is most people rarely ventured into London - too tired or could not afford it.

The average SE commute is 30-40 minutes.

Yawk to KX is 90m.

This ^^^^^^^

...even if got tube to and from work, would not stay there to spend money on entertainment. The weekend forget it, who would want to travel into town when had enough doing it during the week......London is for tourists, everyone else just works there and can't wait to travel back out to another London zone.

[winkie]

12 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Courtesy is proportional to population density.

 

No wouldn't say that, could be how people are brought up, cultural factors, differences, stress levels, not concentrating, selfish, fear of response, lack of eye contact.....even at a crowded party people can be polite and courteous......

[spyguy]

46 minutes ago, Speed1987 said:

There not all going to die at the same time, some will make it to 80-90.

Some will have their children living with them or just hand it directly to their kids. There kids may decide to mortgage the property and pay off other siblings.

It's not the case that a flood of houses will hit the market on mass... it will be a slow trickle affect.

I know several boomers selling up their properties right now, to travel the world and down size. 

I don't think it will have the effect of what some may be hoping for.

I honestly believe it will just mean, those who inherit these properties will be even richer.

Put numbers to it.

Very few make it to 90.

Very few go much beyind 85 in their own house. 30% of oap end up in a care facility.

I think you are very naive assuming that an areas housing market can absorb the extra sales.

As it stands, most areas are seeing 30% of sales that would have normal ftom 70s-02.

The sales number got a boost from io and io btl. But all those transaction, over the last 15 years, are going to return to the market.

Pick an area you are interested in. Use home.co.uk to list sales. Try and work out the probates.

[Pop321]

6 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Where are you thinking? I’ve lived overseas. Grass is greener etc. Everywhere has problems.

 

North Yorkshire. Where the grass is literally greener ??

(I am a Slightly bias northerner)?

[Dorkins]

6 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

The odd thing about this article is that I am not convinced boomers are exclusively the parents of Millennials. I am GenX, and my parents are boomers. If boomers went up to 1963, to be the parent of a 27 year old today, they’d have had to have knocked them out in 1992, which would make the youngest boomers about 29 at the time - not hideously late or early, but the oldest boomers would have been 47 at the time which is late for having kids. So I actually expect a decent chunk of Millennials have early GenX parents - in which case they’ll have to wait a while.

These generational threads always crash on the rocks of definitions. I'd propose:

born 1930-1945 = Pre-Boomers, had a good run economically with homeownership and occupational pensions and are actually the source of many sterotypes ascribed to Boomers (4th cruise this year, food shopping at Waitrose, NIMBY)

born 1946-1959 = Boomers, also had a good run economically but may experience an unexpected squeeze in retirement as there just won't be enough workers around to keep them in the manner to which they are accustomed (e.g. healthcare)

early 1960s - bit of a greyzone, not quite Boomer and not quite GenX. Not happy about getting lumped in with the Boomers during slanging matches and always confused on these threads.

earlyish 1960s - mid 1970s = GenX, not too bad economically but quite likely to have felt the pain of the early 1990s recession on housing equity and careers, also good chance of having bought their forever home at bubble prices so carrying a big mortgage (aka the Kirsty and Phil generation)

late 1970s-very early 1980s = Xennials, life prospects very much depend on whether they got a shift on and bought early or if they had some fun in their 20s which now means decades of crap housing prospects like their GenY brethren

early 1980s-mid 1990s = GenY/Millennials, totally shafted on housing but reasonablish job prospects (albeit without the material living standards to show for it). Depressed after 2 decades in the workforce and getting nowhere economically.

mid 1990s-2000s = GenZ, teetotal digital natives who are completely shafted on both housing and wages and already know it thanks to the internet. Often called Millennials by mistake.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dorkins

[Confusion of VIs]

11 hours ago, Bear Hug said:

All good point but I really don't see

Good point but what's the point of all that money/house by the time the millenials (and I) are in their 60s?

I suppose such planning could allow to decrease saving towards retirement but there is definitely a generation of grandchildren partially lost because some *****s decided to blow a massive housing bubble.

 

There is also a generation of grandchildren inheriting in their teens/20s, as it seems to becoming more common to pass the money on to grandchildren rather than their 40-50 year old parents.  

[iamnumerate]

7 hours ago, Dorkins said:

These generational threads always crash on the rocks of definitions. I'd propose:

born 1930-1945 = Pre-Boomers, had a good run economically with homeownership and occupational pensions and are actually the source of many sterotypes ascribed to Boomers (4th cruise this year, food shopping at Waitrose, NIMBY)

born 1946-1959 = Boomers, also had a good run economically but may experience an unexpected squeeze in retirement as there just won't be enough workers around to keep them in the manner to which they are accustomed (e.g. healthcare)

early 1960s - bit of a greyzone, not quite Boomer and not quite GenX. Not happy about getting lumped in with the Boomers during slanging matches and always confused on these threads.

earlyish 1960s - mid 1970s = GenX, not too bad economically but quite likely to have felt the pain of the early 1990s recession on housing equity and careers, also good chance of having bought their forever home at bubble prices so carrying a big mortgage (aka the Kirsty and Phil generation)

late 1970s-very early 1980s = Xennials, life prospects very much depend on whether they got a shift on and bought early or if they had some fun in their 20s which now means decades of crap housing prospects like their GenY brethren

early 1980s-mid 1990s = GenY/Millennials, totally shafted on housing but reasonablish job prospects (albeit without the material living standards to show for it). Depressed after 2 decades in the workforce and getting nowhere economically.

mid 1990s-2000s = GenZ, teetotal digital natives who are completely shafted on both housing and wages and already know it thanks to the internet. Often called Millennials by mistake.

I would say there is a massive difference between someone born in 1930 whose education was disrupted by the war and someone who was born in 1945 and was not affected very much by the war.

 

[PeanutButter]

13 hours ago, winkie said:

No wouldn't say that, could be how people are brought up, cultural factors, differences, stress levels, not concentrating, selfish, fear of response, lack of eye contact.....even at a crowded party people can be polite and courteous......

I think about it this way. When people are polite they have been taught the value of being polite. The value of it lies in recipricocity. Tit for tat. Good for good.

When someone grows up in a village where people know each other this is very important. If you are rude you will get a reputation! You will suffer the consequences!

Compare this to someone in an anonymous big city. You are rude to someone - no matter, there are thousands more people who don’t know or don’t care because they too are rude. No consequences.

[winkie]

After the war money was invested into society, invested into building good homes for residents, invested in infrastructure, health, education, and really important invested into children......imo many of our children today are being let down in so many ways.......today's children are tomorrow's future.......we reap what we sow.?

[winkie]

3 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

I think about it this way. When people are polite they have been taught the value of being polite. The value of it lies in recipricocity. Tit for tat. Good for good.

When someone grows up in a village where people know each other this is very important. If you are rude you will get a reputation! You will suffer the consequences!

Compare this to someone in an anonymous big city. You are rude to someone - no matter, there are thousands more people who don’t know or don’t care because they too are rude. No consequences.

Fair point but no excuse......you can still smile or use manners at total strangers.....when manners are taught from a young age they tend to stick.......how can treating someone with little respect make anyone's life better....lose,lose........two wrongs do not make it right.?

[cnick]

22 minutes ago, winkie said:

After the war money was invested into society, invested into building good homes for residents, invested in infrastructure, health, education, and really important invested into children......imo many of our children today are being let down in so many ways.......today's children are tomorrow's future.......we reap what we sow.?

Whose 'money' exactly? ....because it is the ownership of it that goes to the indebtedness of 'tomorrow's future'.

?

[winkie]

54 minutes ago, cnick said:

Whose 'money' exactly? ....because it is the ownership of it that goes to the indebtedness of 'tomorrow's future'.

?

Money gathered from taxes, some borrowed...... don't forget a larger percentage of council taxes went into the local economy, wages and pensions did not take such a high proportion.....health service not so expensive or wasteful......public sector not so profiligate like today, spend it all and more, next year will get more attitude......easier to spend other people's and borrowed money.?

[rantnrave]

15 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Courtesy is proportional to population density.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636191/

 

In a 1962 edition of Scientific American, the ecologist John B Calhoun presented the results of a macabre series of experiments conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).1 He had placed several rats in a laboratory in a converted barn where – protected from disease and predation and supplied with food, water and bedding – they bred rapidly. The one thing they were lacking was space, a fact that became increasingly problematic as what he liked to describe as his “rat city” and “rodent utopia” teemed with animals. Unwanted social contact occurred with increasing frequency, leading to increased stress and aggression. Following the work of the physiologist, Hans Selye, it seemed that the adrenal system offered the standard binary solution: fight or flight.2 But in the sealed enclosure, flight was impossible. Violence quickly spiralled out of control. Cannibalism and infanticide followed. Males became hypersexual, pansexual and, an increasing proportion, homosexual. Calhoun called this vortex “a behavioural sink”. Their numbers fell into terminal decline and the population tailed off to extinction. At the experiments’ end, the only animals still alive had survived at an immense psychological cost: asexual and utterly withdrawn, they clustered in a vacant huddled mass. Even when reintroduced to normal rodent communities, these “socially autistic” animals remained isolated until death. In the words of one of Calhoun’s collaborators, rodent “utopia” had descended into “hell”.3

Those rats clearly hadn't spent much time in Tokyo. Most densely populated city on the planet with tiny living spaces - yet one of the safest places in the world.

[PeanutButter]

38 minutes ago, rantnrave said:

Those rats clearly hadn't spent much time in Tokyo. Most densely populated city on the planet with tiny living spaces - yet one of the safest places in the world.

Different cultures behave/react differently to environmental stress factors. Japan is safe but has a high suicide rate. They are inward looking. They also see the high numbers of single adults as a societal problem. The rat analogy would link this to 'these “socially autistic” animals remained isolated until death.'

I don't find Tokyo particularly busy or difficult to navigate, everything is well ordered and quiet (car engines all switch off when stopped at lights). But the entire article on the experiment is worth reading, particularly in context of new stats we see each year concerning developed countries 'well being' and 'happiness' indices. 

When we have all the food we want, all the employment we want, all the entertainment we want, all the sexual partners we want...why are so many people still fundamentally unhappy? Why is mental ill health on the rise? 

[cica]

It's not black and white - there are huge grey area boundaries between the young and old. Many young people will not have much of an inheritance and some will. Many old people will use trust mechanisms to leave property to their children.

[Dorkins]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I would say there is a massive difference between someone born in 1930 whose education was disrupted by the war and someone who was born in 1945 and was not affected very much by the war.

 

Not sure I buy that the 1930-45 born got a significantly worse education due to the war than they would have done otherwise, or that it had any impact on their life prospects. The Blitz lasted for 8 months. People from that age group probably lost more education time due to infectious illnesses like mumps and measles than they did to the war.

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Not sure I buy that the 1930-45 born got a significantly worse education due to the war than they would have done otherwise, or that it had any impact on their life prospects. The Blitz lasted for 8 months. People from that age group probably lost more education time due to infectious illnesses like mumps and measles than they did to the war.

I used to work with someone who claimed he did, even if he were lying or exceptional.  I would say that the job market, uni experience etc would have been very different in 1963 compared to 1948.  Men born before 1st October 1939 had to do national service afterwards they didn't which is a big difference (anyone born 30th Sep 1939 must have been very unhappy).

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Kingdom#After_1945

Edited January 28, 2019 by iamnumerate

[scottbeard]

Interestingly, whilst people still mentally picture the "baby boomer" generation as huge, don't forget a lot of them have already died over the 73 years since they started being born.  If you look at the UK population pyramid today, by my calculation there are more millennials than baby boomers:

 

 

pop pyramid 2.bmp