The Forgotten Generation X - Overlooked?

[Riedquat]

11 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Everyone looks back at their youth and thinks it was better back then. Everyone. I do. But observation that it occurs with every generation tells me I'm probably biased.

That might just be telling us that things are getting constantly shittier.

[dugsbody]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That might just be telling us that things are getting constantly shittier.

Occam's razor tells us, almost certainly not. 

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Occam's razor tells us, almost certainly not. 

Don't see how.

[dugsbody]

22 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Don't see how.

That's because of your nature.

[scottbeard]

17 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That might just be telling us that things are getting constantly shittier.

Based upon all the posts of yours I've read over the years you seem to be a relatively pessimistic person, and probably are biased to perceive things as getting worse.  Conversely,  I'm a relatively optimistic person, which means I know that I'm biased the other way.

It's really hard for any of us to get an objective view overall of how the world is changing.

There certainly a general bias in the population to enjoying their youth more than their middle age (statistically it's always the 18-25 year olds, and the 65-75 year olds, who are happiest) which means those aged 35-50 generally feel that the world has got worse - in reality it's just that they're now spending their time changing nappies and dealing with clueless work colleagues when they used to just go drinking with their mates.

The world also tends to move in oscillations, where you get a run of a few years of one way of thinking, followed by a few years of another.  We had a run of globalization, and now are seeing a run of nationalism; there are good and bad points to both.  Improvements therefore don't tend to happen in a nice straight line.  I like to think that through trial and error humans gradually over the 1,000s of years are systematically improving their lot rather than the reverse - but then, like I said, I'm an optimist

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

That's because of your nature.

A not unreasonable hypothesis

[PeanutButter]

On 08/08/2019 at 17:54, Dorkins said:

This is where "Xennial" comes into it, the late 1970s and very early 1980s babies who are just on the edge between the median person being economically okayish as long as you don't make any major errors and economically shafted pretty much no matter what you do.

Didn't hang about in education, got a job and bought ASAP, stayed in work ever since, no divorce = basically okay

Spent a while studying, taught English as a foreign language in Asia, one or two career reboots in 20s, didn't own a house by 2003 = bzzzt, shafted, please join the other line with the Millennials whose grinding economic futures were already set in stone while they were in school uniform.

I mean these are very broad generalisations, right? I only bought (starter 2 bed) in 2010 but the place has gained (yes on paper but it's been realised by neighbours twice this year) 200k ish. That's a stupid amount.

There are so many soft variables like inheritance, job progression and industry (I'm in an industry that seems impervious to recession), and even attitude to spending/saving (I was raised by very credit-averse parents, big savers on low incomes but who knew how to budget). 

I do feel sorry for proper Millennials - they seem so adrift, kind of floundering and beset by emotional problems and anxieties. Each generation seems to be able to access a smaller slice of the pie and to have to fight more for it. What's the world going to look like when we hit 10 billion?

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Based upon all the posts of yours I've read over the years you seem to be a relatively pessimistic person, and probably are biased to perceive things as getting worse.  Conversely,  I'm a relatively optimistic person, which means I know that I'm biased the other way.

It's really hard for any of us to get an objective view overall of how the world is changing.

There certainly a general bias in the population to enjoying their youth more than their middle age (statistically it's always the 18-25 year olds, and the 65-75 year olds, who are happiest) which means those aged 35-50 generally feel that the world has got worse - in reality it's just that they're now spending their time changing nappies and dealing with clueless work colleagues when they used to just go drinking with their mates.

The world also tends to move in oscillations, where you get a run of a few years of one way of thinking, followed by a few years of another.  We had a run of globalization, and now are seeing a run of nationalism; there are good and bad points to both.  Improvements therefore don't tend to happen in a nice straight line.  I like to think that through trial and error humans gradually over the 1,000s of years are systematically improving their lot rather than the reverse - but then, like I said, I'm an optimist

I know I certainly come across as pessimistic but the question is whether that pessimism is fundamentally my nature or whether it's because I'm just being ground down by a series of changes where I find the negative ones outweigh the positive ones. Based on the fact that I'm generally reasonably cheerful when I'm drunk I do sometimes wonder which it is.

What is an objective view of how things are changing? When it comes to whether they're positive or negative changes that is a fundamentally subjective view.

I've no nappies to deal with and, despite sometimes grumbling about work, I often find the work itself interesting and challenging (although since it's of a technical development nature that does make me a massive hypocrite), although it's got more soulessly corporate over the years. But I don't have much to complain about in my direct personal circumstances.

There have been ups and downs, no argument there, but I don't think that thousands of years of history is a good example to compare with because by far the lion's share of those changes have occurred in the last two hundred, so we're still in that historically unprecedented period. Those changes have certainly got rid of (or at least significantly reduced) a lot of truly unpleasant parts of life but it does strike me as a rather dogmatic attitude that constant "progress" is therefore beneficial  (although there are always things that even I would agree could benefit from some). I tend to find that the majority of things that I wouldn't want to deal with from the past have already been dealt with so I see increasingly little benefit from further change and therefore just the downsides.

That all said I do find it rather hilarious that my blood group is B+!

[Errol]

Empires don't last forever. Many today seem to think that history has stopped and it is only upwards from here. Sadly, this is probably what the populations of all the dead empires in history thought.

[PeanutButter]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I know I certainly come across as pessimistic but the question is whether that pessimism is fundamentally my nature or whether it's because I'm just being ground down by a series of changes where I find the negative ones outweigh the positive ones. Based on the fact that I'm generally reasonably cheerful when I'm drunk I do sometimes wonder which it is.

What is an objective view of how things are changing? When it comes to whether they're positive or negative changes that is a fundamentally subjective view.

I've no nappies to deal with and, despite sometimes grumbling about work, I often find the work itself interesting and challenging (although since it's of a technical development nature that does make me a massive hypocrite), although it's got more soulessly corporate over the years. But I don't have much to complain about in my direct personal circumstances.

There have been ups and downs, no argument there, but I don't think that thousands of years of history is a good example to compare with because by far the lion's share of those changes have occurred in the last two hundred, so we're still in that historically unprecedented period. Those changes have certainly got rid of (or at least significantly reduced) a lot of truly unpleasant parts of life but it does strike me as a rather dogmatic attitude that constant "progress" is therefore beneficial  (although there are always things that even I would agree could benefit from some). I tend to find that the majority of things that I wouldn't want to deal with from the past have already been dealt with so I see increasingly little benefit from further change and therefore just the downsides.

That all said I do find it rather hilarious that my blood group is B+!

I read that general attitude (positive or negative) is primarily genetic but we can still make determined changes that will, over time, accumulate into a default. It's an interesting field. 

[Riedquat]

22 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

I read that general attitude (positive or negative) is primarily genetic but we can still make determined changes that will, over time, accumulate into a default. It's an interesting field. 

I do quite strongly believe that the same person in a different environment might change from being pessimistic to optimistic or vice-versa.

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

in reality it's just that they're now spending their time changing nappies and dealing with clueless work colleagues when they used to just go drinking with their mates.

+1 ??

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

The world also tends to move in oscillations, where you get a run of a few years of one way of thinking, followed by a few years of another.  We had a run of globalization, and now are seeing a run of nationalism; there are good and bad points to both. 

I could have written this. In fact, I think I probably have in various threads. 

[scepticus]

14 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Ah but that's not how it works - the rule isn't "the next wave is edgier than the last", the rule is "the next wave seeks to be the opposite of the last, whatever that was".  The 50s was about stiff upper lip, so the 60s was about relaxed and hippy-ish.  The 70s was the decade of power for the union worker, so the 80s became the decade of power for the office worker/yuppie.  When it comes to music, the 80s was all synthesizers and saxophones, so the 90s went back to more drums and guitars.  So the 2000s was all club tunes.  Now the 2010s the club tunes are gone and lo and behold a crooner with a guitar like Ed Sheeran is back in.  In the 2020s no doubt it will change again.  Just like beards were "in" for the 60s/70s then "out" for the 80s/90s they're now in again, culture oscillates more than it evolves.

Well yes in general to that but when you introduce socially disruptive stuff like smartphone and internet at the same time as huge shifts in operation of the world economy and monetary system there may be some permanent shifts which are not unwound in the subsequent cycle.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, scepticus said:

Well yes in general to that but when you introduce socially disruptive stuff like smartphone and internet at the same time as huge shifts in operation of the world economy and monetary system there may be some permanent shifts which are not unwound in the subsequent cycle.

The internet has opened up the world to millions of people, loads of new information, good and bad, fact and fiction.....no longer living in a bubble or still living in a bubble that can now see outside of.....more now have that choice as to whether they dare to venture outside to find out, or continue to make judgement whilst continuing to live inside......

....many now have decided to begin to disconnect from technology including having a TV.?

Edited August 14, 2019 by winkie

[Social Justice League]

I'm a gen x'er.  Was born in 1975 and spent the 1990's either at school or in Uni.  Started working in proper steady jobs around 2001, just as the property ponzi was kicking off. 

Never bought a house, but I've now go plenty of cash if and when property becomes attractive again.

It's been a strange existence being a gen x'er imo, as we were all encouraged to continue down the boomer route, only to have the rug pulled by NuLabour and the mighty property Ponzi kicking off in 1997. 

I was 21 when Blair was voted in.  I voted for him too as did many of the youth at the time.

Strange days indeed.

[Errol]

28 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

I was 21 when Blair was voted in.  I voted for him too as did many of the youth at the time.

Yeah, that was your mistake.

[Social Justice League]

Just now, Errol said:

Yeah, that was your mistake.

At the time Oasis were telling us that Blair was the "saviour".....lol.

Why did him an Brown think that a rampant housing Ponzi was the answer?

I can't remember the reason's why this all started, as it was so long ago now.

[Flopsy]

1 hour ago, Social Justice League said:

At the time Oasis were telling us that Blair was the "saviour".....lol.

Why did him an Brown think that a rampant housing Ponzi was the answer?

I can't remember the reason's why this all started, as it was so long ago now.

Towards the end of the last Labour Govt I went to a meeting at the HOC with the Housing Minister Caroline Flint (and another Labour MP) . Can't remember who organised it but it was attended by younger people mainly renting.

Got onto the subject of all the flats being built instead of houses and Ms Flint said this was because they believed that all the older home owners would downsize into these and freeing up all the family homes.

Neither the Minister or the MP understood what was happening. The MP said that in her constituency homes for shared ownership had been built and were very popular. 

Ms Flint spoke about how much work Labour had done to improve the conditions of council houses. She had been brought up in one.

We really were not listened to at that meeting.

I've tried since then to talk to various MP's of places I have rented in (of different parties)  but the consensus is that it's a good thing to force us into home ownership schemes. They simply don't see anything wrong what the current situation.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Flopsy

[Dorkins]

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Yeah, that was your mistake.

The Tories would have done exactly the same if they'd stayed in power. I don't remember the Tories in opposition saying how terrible the huge increases in house prices were.

[winkie]

Generation X are the financial services generation, less required, machines can do so much more anyway far too expensive, .....now is the IT generation, the cyber 'protection' generation.....protection from others that want to harm and steal from us = the era of protectionism? 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

On 14/08/2019 at 17:37, winkie said:

The internet has opened up the world to millions of people, loads of new information, good and bad, fact and fiction.....no longer living in a bubble or still living in a bubble that can now see outside of.....more now have that choice as to whether they dare to venture outside to find out, or continue to make judgement whilst continuing to live inside......

....many now have decided to begin to disconnect from technology including having a TV.?

I am seeing quite a bit of this, but mainly focused on social media. The fact that Facebook has so badly ripped off people data is causing many to actively consider what information they put out there.

That said, there are some that just can't help themselves. I was in a  long coffee queue the other day and there was some really dumb 17 year old girl in front of me and she just couldn't stop taking selfies and Instagramming herself and then checking 30 seconds later to see if anyone had liked it. She looked like a drug addicted who'd just dropped her heroine wrap and was scrabbling to get the powder off the floor by any means possible.

[winkie]

3 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I am seeing quite a bit of this, but mainly focused on social media. The fact that Facebook has so badly ripped off people data is causing many to actively consider what information they put out there.

That said, there are some that just can't help themselves. I was in a  long coffee queue the other day and there was some really dumb 17 year old girl in front of me and she just couldn't stop taking selfies and Instagramming herself and then checking 30 seconds later to see if anyone had liked it. She looked like a drug addicted who'd just dropped her heroine wrap and was scrabbling to get the powder off the floor by any means possible.

Rather sad...... seriously I find people are disconnecting from social media, thinking more about protecting their privacy.....how far will it go??

[bushblairandbrown]

16 hours ago, Flopsy said:

Neither the Minister or the MP understood what was happening.

I suspect they did. 

[TwoWolves]

19 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

I'm a gen x'er.  Was born in 1975 and spent the 1990's either at school or in Uni.  Started working in proper steady jobs around 2001, just as the property ponzi was kicking off. 

Never bought a house, but I've now go plenty of cash if and when property becomes attractive again.

It's been a strange existence being a gen x'er imo, as we were all encouraged to continue down the boomer route, only to have the rug pulled by NuLabour and the mighty property Ponzi kicking off in 1997. 

I was 21 when Blair was voted in.  I voted for him too as did many of the youth at the time.

Strange days indeed.

I'm in the same boat except I have a young family in rental. Didn't vote for Blair though as I could see through his lies. It has been strange spending my life with the Boomers blocking the doors all the time. They got steady jobs, cheap houses, senior management and fat pensions - I still count my blessings but the government needs to stop feathering the Boomer nest.

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, winkie said:

Rather sad...... seriously I find people are disconnecting from social media, thinking more about protecting their privacy.....how far will it go??

Disconnecting from the wrong bits of technology IMO. Whilst constantly staring at Facebook makes me roll my eyes at people just not obsessessing with it all the time would be enough. Leave it at home for a bit of a look when you put your feet up in the evening rather than being on it all the time. No, the technology that bothers me and I think we'd do better disconnecting from is that technology that's insinuated itself into rather ordinary tasks, leaving people incapable of doing anything without it. Try asking someone to get from A to B without a satnav... The former is really a hobby, the latter is dependence.