Anti-boomer Sentiment

[Guest Cletus VanDamme]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

[Realistbear]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

Simple answer: nothing new under the sun, Larger population requires more resources than smaller ones.

Blame: the World War 2 Generation for having babies after the War.

Blame: The Great Depression generation for HPI and MEW

Blame: The Victorian Generation for having too many babies that would require more resources to keep them going.

As the song goes: And the beat goes on.........

[frugalista]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

At the end of the day, children of rich boomers will be fine, children of poor boomers will be shafted. So, it's not really a case of increasing generational tension, but increasing class tension. Children of poor boomers might claim their generation was shafted, but children of rich boomers will just stay quiet, do what their parents say, and take their handouts.

This is very different from the time when the boomers were young. Many boomers who were children of poor people did very well, on the back of free health care, improved schools, free university, good pensions, wage inflation, property ladder etc. The children of the rich in those times found they had to compete a bit more vigorously in the workplace.

Now, this process is being reversed. So, the postwar achievements of a broadly meritocratic society are well and truly on the way out. You cannot get a good schooling or healthcare unless you have a good house (i.e. in a prime location). You cannot get easily a good house unless your parents have one. That's not meritocracy.

frugalista

Edited March 21, 2006 by frugalista

[BuyingBear]

Look at the goings on in Paris in responce to double-standards in employment law.

[Guest Cletus VanDamme]

At the end of the day, children of rich boomers will be fine, children of poor boomers will be shafted. So, it's not really a case of increasing generational tension, but increasing class tension. Children of poor boomers might claim their generation was shafted, but children of rich boomers will just stay quiet, do what their parents say, and take their handouts.

This is very different from the time when the boomers were young. Many boomers who were children of poor people did very well, on the back of free health care, improved schools, free university, good pensions, wage inflation, property ladder etc. The children of the rich in those times found they had to compete a bit more vigorously in the workplace.

Now, this process is being reversed. So, the postwar achievements of a broadly meritocratic society are well and truly on the way out. You cannot get a good schooling or healthcare unless you have a good house (i.e. in a prime location). You cannot get easily a good house unless your parents have one. That's not meritocracy.

frugalista

Wonder if Bliar and the rest of NuLab have yet realised this will be their legacy? Decreased social mobility and increased class divides.

[MarkG]

Wonder if Bliar and the rest of NuLab have yet realised this will be their legacy? Decreased social mobility and increased class divides.

Surely that was Blair's intention?

[Guest DisposableHeroes]

It's just a result of low interest rates and people benefiting from the situation (we would probably do the same if we could). It's the government / bank of England which frustrates me by not doing anything to resolve the situation. Up the interest rates or heavily tax 2nd homes which aren’t a necessity, throw us a friggin bone here Gordon.

[frugalista]

Wonder if Bliar and the rest of NuLab have yet realised this will be their legacy? Decreased social mobility and increased class divides.

It started in the 80s really, with Thatcher. But, NuLab is also to blame for not doing anything substantial to reverse it, just letting it continue unabated.

frugalista

[jp1]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

There was a boomer who phoned into Radio 2 this lunchtime, having a go at a newspaper columnist who called Tony Blair a pathological liar.

His justification for thinking Tony B was fantastic was that 'I now have the freedom to do what I want, go holiday where I want, and buy whatever I want. Thanks to Tony Blair and this Labour government we're all living the '"Champage lifestye"

Funny - his name was Eric if I remember, and he sounded like some old goat from the 'havin' it all' Saga generation who's MEW'ed himself into oblivion

[Guest Cletus VanDamme]

Surely that was Blair's intention?

We'll have to wait for the Bliar diaries and autobiography to find out for sure.

[frugalista]

Surely that was Blair's intention?

To be honest, I don't think it was. I think Blair + co. are just incredibly gullible. Having come of age in the days where trickle-down economics was the shape of the Brave New World, the NuLab politicos believed its hype. While the economic boom times were roaring, it seemed unwise to upset the status quo. When the bust comes, the laissez-faire free-marketism will be shown (once again) to have been just one big City banker con trick.

Incidentally, I think an analogous process explains Blair's handling of Iraq.

frugalista

[LTD]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon?

I reckon so. Somebody's even written an anti-boomer book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031242082...glance&n=283155

No idea if it's any good though.

P.S. Cletus, I thought you were good in The Shield bamboozling those Armenian gangsters and stuff.

[Realistbear]

Wonder if Bliar and the rest of NuLab have yet realised this will be their legacy? Decreased social mobility and increased class divides.

Class divide was always a central policy of old Labour and something Maggie tried to destroy when she attempted to dismantle the stranglehold of public schools on top jobs (she was from a lower middle class background--state school etc.) and at the same time destroy the stranglehold of the loony left on essential services which have all been privatised by NuLabour. NuLabour are the new pre-Maggie Tory party (!) with the return to privilege based on (HPI/MEW) wealth. Those who have done best under NuLabour are loan sharks, estate agents, lawyers (their fees have doubled under Labour due to certain "reforms" that have added to costs) and entrepreneurs who have cashed in on the Chinese revolution of cheap imported goods. Probably in that order.

Social mobility under Maggie was almost venerated because of her rise from poor middle class to top government job. Under NuLabour social mobility is based on borrowing and building property empires that rely on vanishing wealth for their long term sustainability.

Let's hope David "Scotty" Cameron does not prove to be a tradional old Tory but a continuation of the anti-privilege vein started by Maggie. IN other words, a radical centre-left.

[OurDayWillCome]

Suddenly inheritance tax is becoming more of an issue with the British - is this because children of property owning boomers see inheritance as their only chance onto the ladder?

[bottletop]

If you accept that the only way out of the enormous debt we've got ourselves in as a country is to inflate like there's no tomorrow, then it will be boomers savings that will be destroyed while the younger generations' debts are eroded.

So what if the retirees cash out a free 100k from downsizing their homes now if in 10 years those savings have the purchasing power of 20k today, and the yound uns "enormous" mortgage debt can be paid off by a years earnings.

Edited March 21, 2006 by bottletop

[MarkG]

Social mobility under Maggie was almost venerated because of her rise from poor middle class to top government job.

Agreed. As someone from a working class family, I can't see how anyone could claim that Thatcher _reduced_ social mobility... a lot of overpaid union workers may have ended up on the dole, but there were plenty of opportunities for their kids to join the middle class. Opportunities which are largely unavailable to today's kids under NuLab.

So what if the retirees cash out a free 100k from downsizing their homes now if in 10 years those savings have the purchasing power of 20k today, and the yound uns "enormous" mortgage debt can be paid off by a years earnings.

Because it won't happen. Or, if it does, the minority in favored industries will benefit as their wage increases inflate away their debts, while the majority see their standard of living drop ever lower because inflation outpaces wage growth for years.

Edited March 21, 2006 by MarkG

[Realistbear]

Suddenly inheritance tax is becoming more of an issue with the British - is this because children of property owning boomers see inheritance as their only chance onto the ladder?

Sums up NuLabour nicely: "inheritance" tax. Remind anyone of the old aristocracy? The new privileged class of HPI/MEWers that NuLabour has fostered. Wealth passed down through inheritance because there is nothing else left other than the house!

[Guest Cletus VanDamme]

I reckon so. Somebody's even written an anti-boomer book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031242082...glance&n=283155

No idea if it's any good though.

P.S. Cletus, I thought you were good in The Shield bamboozling those Armenian gangsters and stuff.

Thanks for the link, I liked this line:

"They don't ever actually want anything. They just want a huge number of choices.... They have to videotape everything. They have bottomless faith in self-help, though it's obviously not working.... They're stupefyingly self-centered, unbelievably rude, obnoxious beyond belief, and they're everywhere."

PS. The Armenian job would have been sweet if Lemonhead hadn't burned all the cash.

[Catch22]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

Sometimes I think some of you lot on here are so preoccupied with the effort of perfecting the art of masturbation, that you have neglected to learn about market dynamics. Because if you did you would understand you are where you are today because of an accident of birth.

Fair do's you can blame the boomers for conceiving you, but as to the state of the housing market, look to your leaders, how they allow restrictive planning, along with the fact they have engineered this situation in league with the banking industry. Now if your too dumb to understand that then I suggest you stick with what you do best

Edited March 21, 2006 by Catch22

[geneer]

Discussions on this forum sprang out of various online articles.

We just took our own particular perspective on it with an HPC bias of course.

Definitely a wider picture issue, see CH4 docs "The trouble with old people" coming up soon.

The "The Birds" parody preview is hilarious, yet unerving.

[bandylegs]

Most of my mates have never considered that they don't have the same advantages and opportunities that the boomers had. They swallow all of the "we never had it easy like you with your ipods and foreign holidays" rubbish word for word.

[Zaranna]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

Yep, that's right

In all seriousness, though, I do try not to be too anti-boomer (it's hard, though ). It's a wider demographic problem not of their own making. I wouldn't mind so much if the boomers I know - my older colleages, my parents, my parents' friends - were largely self-conscious and aware of the problem. A bit of "What are we going to do to make sure our children, and our children's children, and our society in general, are OK?" wouldn't go amiss.

BUT what really makes me angry is that all those I know of that generation - without exception - seem to regard me and my generation as lazy scroungers who "don't know they're born" - and will say as much as loudly as they want! The number of comments I have put up with from my parents, relatives and parents' friends about my lack of house, lack of children, lack of amazing high-paying stable job until retirement with pension and healthcare (where are those for my generation, then? ) is just downright amazing! A little attention to the papers and to the world around them would tell them that things just aren't as cushy for us as they seem to think - but they don't seem to be able, or want, to see it. This extends from parents and parents' friends who go on about why young people today don't seem to want to settle down and Take Responsibility For Their Lives (huh - when houses cost over 200k - how?) to colleagues who hold younger people to standards they never had to meet themselves (or working conditions they themselves wouldn't dream of putting up with). It's the sense of entitlement and selfishness that irritates me. It's funny, because boomers often say my generation has an entitlement complex. I don't notice that among my friends and siblings, or even my students, however - I see a generation of people expecting low wages, expecting to have a great deal of debt, worrying about their education and their jobs and how they will have families, and are quite accepting of the fact that they will get very little free in this life. It's the boomers, however, who most often seem to want something for nothing - wealth they didn't work for (through HPI); pensions they didn't have to pay for (through BTL); and not to have to pay out for anything for their children or grandchildren (like university education, housing etc).

In my sector (university teaching) it's now routine to expect young lecturers to be willing to uproot themselves on short-term contracts every year, year on year, until they're in their forties, leaving behind their partners, and in some cases children, as they chase short-term jobs around far-flung parts of the country just to stay in their profession. I've even had older colleagues tell me that it is "Good for Younger Scholars" to do this (never mind that *they* wouldn't have dreamt of living apart from their wife and children during most of their career just to get a permanent job). This example is just one case of what I call the boomer "doublethink" - most of that generation have kind of rationalised the current employment and housing situation as OUR problem, not a collective problem that needs to be solved collectively. Somehow it's OUR fault if we can't afford houses/haven't got permanent jobs (just work harder/get another job that's better paid/whatever as long as you don't whine at us about how hard done by you are). I wouldn't mind so much if there was some degree of recognition that things are genuinely difficult for us, and that by helping us the boomers will also help themselves. Instead, people under 35 seem to be regarded simultaneously as 1. lazy do-nothings who have it all and as 2. cash cows who will work and work to pay higher and higher house prices and fund pensions ad infinitum (surely contradictory?) I regularly work 70-80 hours per week, and yet still see older tenured colleagues (who work about a half to a third of that amount) proclaiming that what we lazy young people need to do to get ahead, is produce more research - in our spare time!

I realise I'll probably get flamed for this post and I know I'm being very general and reductive here about boomers which is partly for effect, so do take that into account. But I don't think this (growing) feeling of resentment is just confined to HPC - I hear it from colleagues and friends in all sectors and kinds of jobs, from my siblings (younger than me) and even a bit from my students (10 years younger than me).

So -j ust a bit of occasional sympathy from the boomers would be nice. Yes, we have IPods (don't have one myself, mind ), but you had cheap housing, permanent jobs, the space race, shorter working hours, the chance to have as many children as you wanted, free education, good music, a sense of social optimism and something to look forward to in life.

edited for typos

Edited March 21, 2006 by Zaranna

[murpaul]

Let's hope David "Scotty" Cameron does not prove to be a tradional old Tory but a continuation of the anti-privilege vein started by Maggie. IN other words, a radical centre-left.

Sorry to shatter your hopes, but 'just call me Dave, keep it real' is a salesman. Nothing more. If you are hoping he will do anything to change the socio-economic trends of the last decade, I think you will be sorely disappointed.

[watchinandwaiting]

It started in the 80s really, with Thatcher. But, NuLab is also to blame for not doing anything substantial to reverse it, just letting it continue unabated.

frugalista

Got it in one.

[Casual Observer]

Noticed quite a bit anti-baby boomer sentiment on the site recently. Do people feel this is part of a wider phenomenon? If so, what will the result be?

To sum up, sentiment is generally:

Boomers have shafted the younger generation with: a) sky-high house prices; making them pay for higher education, which boomers enjoyed for free; c) expecting them to pay boomers pensions, while cutting their future pension entitlement; d) making them pay for boomers lifestyles, through renting their BTLs

Cletus

The only BTLers I know are in their 20's! The only people I know who try to make money out of property speculation are from that generation too. Something to do with this generation's get rich without having to save or work hard mentality?

Edited March 21, 2006 by Casual Observer