Are people born in the 1950s a privileged generation?

[StarSparkle]

Course they're likely to face unemployment thanks to boardroom greed in the City and on Wall Street. This credit crunch is the end product of unfettered greed in the financial institutions and it is ordinary people who are paying the price, and certainly not the culprits, who spent years telling ordinary people that we get mass unemployment through unreasonable wage demands whilst these same people have spent two decades raiding the till with disastrous results. And unlike past Governments, this Government will do its utmost to ensure that any recession is relatively shallow and short-lived because they know that they don't get let off like the Tories under Thatcher.

 

Exactly so. Sensible, decent people have been warning of this for the last 20 years - but it seemed that no-one wanted to listen. Everyone was too busy grabbing what they could for themselves in the orgy of greed.

 

And now there is nothing left in the kitty Those chickens are coming home with a vengeance

 

StarSparkle

[WoodForWood]

So. Raise the retirement age to 75 now? If we don't force their hand, they're never going to offer. The culture of self-interest is too strong in them. I'm not all for the cult of youth but they aren't introducing sustainability with any type of urgency (e.g. slack environmental targets set for 2020 when they'll either be dead or too old to help/criticise/care).

 

Alternatively, how about a windfall tax on the baby boomer sucesses? If it's good enough for the energy companies, then screw those who've shafted the future. Any comments or other ideas?

 

Where will this inter-generation resentment take us? Will my generation hate the elderly? Further destruction of familial bonds?

 

TankaToy said:

My brother has already cleared off to more hospitable regions. I fear I will soon be doing the same, as will anyone else who still has a bank balance they would like to hang on to.

In 30-40 years this country could be an Islamic state. Who knows. I am not going to be around to be part of it.

TonkaToy, I'm not up for running even though it sounds (very) tempting. I reckon stay & fix it. Question: has the bank balance you want to protect comprise of what we're suggesting are the country's stripped assets? Don't take that personally, by the way! The accusations here are far more systemic than individual finger pointing will solve; I'm just interested, that's all. If they are, then maybe people in your position have a duty to keep the money here and not do a flit, worstening (made up word?) the country's problems.

 

p.s. SHYTOT, Loved my walk thanks; just a short (dry) one through Lawrence Field and round to Padley Gorge followed by being treated to Thai fish cakes and a Kelham Island beer in Hathersage. Saw my mates' 1yo kids too. Champion, unexpected interuption!

[Fareast]

I think those of us born in the early 1940 's could be included in the ' lucky ' generation too. We were too young to realise much about the horrors of the outside world. The late 1940's were pretty grim by today 's standards but we kids had nothing to compare it with so we accepted most of it as natural.

 

In any case, things were getting better in the material sense every year. This process speeded up through the ' 50 's and '60 's and only really started to crumble in the mid 1970 's. It 's no good saying, as people no doubt will, that , " Yeah, but look how poor you were in the ' 50 's compared with today. " To me, that comparison is futile and historically bonkers. People can 't compare their lives with the future as it hasn 't happened [ doh ! ] ; they can only compare it with the past and throughout the late 40 's, 50 's, 60 's and mid 70 's, life DID get more prosperous.

 

People also compare their lives laterally too. We could compare ourselves with countries like France, Italy, Germany......etc....and we were living a pretty good life compared with them. There was a fairly low crime rate [ picking up speed, though ! ], more or less no unemployment, a general feeling of being fairly free with some dignity, more widespread

education, more foreign holidays......etc.....etc....

 

I'm almost 100 % certain that the vast majority of people thought that life was better than in the 1920 's and '30 's. They didn 't imagine this. It probably WAS better ! In the same way today, people are not imagining how good life felt in the '50 's and '60 's. It really DID feel good ! I wonder how many people today feel life is good in the U.K , especially compared to life 30 or 40 years ago ?

 

Many people put the decline down to mass, uncontrolled immigration. This certainly co-incided with the decline but I don 't think it 's the whole answer, by any means. There are quite a few other inter-connected reasons too. However, that is another story. Anyway, at least, we who had to buy sweets on ration, go to Cleethorpes for our holidays and went to bed in the freezing cold didn 't suffer for nothing ! All good experience innit ?

[SHYTOT]

I think those of us born in the early 1940 's could be included in the ' lucky ' generation too. We were too young to realise much about the horrors of the outside world. The late 1940's were pretty grim by today 's standards but we kids had nothing to compare it with so we accepted most of it as natural.

 

In any case, things were getting better in the material sense every year. This process speeded up through the ' 50 's and '60 's and only really started to crumble in the mid 1970 's. It 's no good saying, as people no doubt will, that , " Yeah, but look how poor you were in the ' 50 's compared with today. " To me, that comparison is futile and historically bonkers. People can 't compare their lives with the future as it hasn 't happened [ doh ! ] ; they can only compare it with the past and throughout the late 40 's, 50 's, 60 's and mid 70 's, life DID get more prosperous.

 

People also compare their lives laterally too. We could compare ourselves with countries like France, Italy, Germany......etc....and we were living a pretty good life compared with them. There was a fairly low crime rate [ picking up speed, though ! ], more or less no unemployment, a general feeling of being fairly free with some dignity, more widespread

education, more foreign holidays......etc.....etc....

 

I'm almost 100 % certain that the vast majority of people thought that life was better than in the 1920 's and '30 's. They didn 't imagine this. It probably WAS better ! In the same way today, people are not imagining how good life felt in the '50 's and '60 's. It really DID feel good ! I wonder how many people today feel life is good in the U.K , especially compared to life 30 or 40 years ago ?

 

Many people put the decline down to mass, uncontrolled immigration. This certainly co-incided with the decline but I don 't think it 's the whole answer, by any means. There are quite a few other inter-connected reasons too. However, that is another story. Anyway, at least, we who had to buy sweets on ration, go to Cleethorpes for our holidays and went to bed in the freezing cold didn 't suffer for nothing ! All good experience innit ?

 

My second choice decade would have been 1940-50, particularly after the war finished. They were years of great optimism as rationing ended.

 

I don't think people were a great deal poorer then than they are now. Certainly by the 1960s that was the case. People owned things. Now most people simply possess things but still owe the money for them. In the last decade peoples pensions have disappeared and personal debt has increased by £6000 per family. That isn't affluence. I suspect that many people in their 30s and 40s are going to get a nasty shock when they start thinking about retirement.

[Cyclone]

I think those of us born in the early 1940 's could be included in the ' lucky ' generation too. We were too young to realise much about the horrors of the outside world. The late 1940's were pretty grim by today 's standards but we kids had nothing to compare it with so we accepted most of it as natural.

 

In any case, things were getting better in the material sense every year. This process speeded up through the ' 50 's and '60 's and only really started to crumble in the mid 1970 's. It 's no good saying, as people no doubt will, that , " Yeah, but look how poor you were in the ' 50 's compared with today. " To me, that comparison is futile and historically bonkers. People can 't compare their lives with the future as it hasn 't happened [ doh ! ] ; they can only compare it with the past and throughout the late 40 's, 50 's, 60 's and mid 70 's, life DID get more prosperous.

 

People also compare their lives laterally too. We could compare ourselves with countries like France, Italy, Germany......etc....and we were living a pretty good life compared with them. There was a fairly low crime rate [ picking up speed, though ! ], more or less no unemployment, a general feeling of being fairly free with some dignity, more widespread

education, more foreign holidays......etc.....etc....

 

I'm almost 100 % certain that the vast majority of people thought that life was better than in the 1920 's and '30 's. They didn 't imagine this. It probably WAS better ! In the same way today, people are not imagining how good life felt in the '50 's and '60 's. It really DID feel good ! I wonder how many people today feel life is good in the U.K , especially compared to life 30 or 40 years ago ?

 

Many people put the decline down to mass, uncontrolled immigration. This certainly co-incided with the decline but I don 't think it 's the whole answer, by any means. There are quite a few other inter-connected reasons too. However, that is another story. Anyway, at least, we who had to buy sweets on ration, go to Cleethorpes for our holidays and went to bed in the freezing cold didn 't suffer for nothing ! All good experience innit ?

 

Interesting argument.

So you're saying that the absolute quality of life doesn't matter, only the change in the quality of life matters because as a participant that's all you observe. As a participant it's true I agree.

But as a 3rd party observer looking from an outside reference point you can compare the absolute levels. Sure, someone today might not realise that the facilities they take for granted, the minimum wage, the benefits system, the NHS, cheap transport, free information, central heating, clean water and imported exotic fruit didn't exist in the 40's. Maybe their quality of life will even decline over the next 20 years. But for the outside observer, they've still had a better quality of life than someone living through the 40's and 50's.

 

Since I didn't live through the 40's and 50's, if I try to determine whether they had a better quality of life I'm likely to compare it to what i know, instead of look at whether it improved for them or not.

So I'll conclude that the 40's was grim, and despite not knowing it, they were unlucky to be born then, and despite not really realising it, we're lucky to have been born later.

[Cyclone]

My second choice decade would have been 1940-50, particularly after the war finished. They were years of great optimism as rationing ended.

 

I don't think people were a great deal poorer then than they are now. Certainly by the 1960s that was the case. People owned things. Now most people simply possess things but still owe the money for them. In the last decade peoples pensions have disappeared and personal debt has increased by £6000 per family. That isn't affluence. I suspect that many people in their 30s and 40s are going to get a nasty shock when they start thinking about retirement.

 

When you say they 'owned' things, what things are you talking about.

My grandparents (both sides) were fairly representative of their generation. And they didn't own a great deal back then. They didn't have a car, they didn't own a house, I don't think they got a TV until the 50's, my parents didn't have wardrobes full of clothes, lots of toys and Christmas presents from all the relatives.

Based on personal experience I'm not convinced that most people owe lots of money these days either. I'm (just) into the 30's bracket and I have friends within a few years on either side. None of them have debt problems, or any significant debt at all apart from mortgages. Sure, we all use credit when it makes sense to do so, but we do so through choice, not necessity.

[SHYTOT]

When you say they 'owned' things, what things are you talking about.

My grandparents (both sides) were fairly representative of their generation. And they didn't own a great deal back then. They didn't have a car, they didn't own a house, I don't think they got a TV until the 50's, my parents didn't have wardrobes full of clothes, lots of toys and Christmas presents from all the relatives.

Based on personal experience I'm not convinced that most people owe lots of money these days either. I'm (just) into the 30's bracket and I have friends within a few years on either side. None of them have debt problems, or any significant debt at all apart from mortgages. Sure, we all use credit when it makes sense to do so, but we do so through choice, not necessity.

 

You are the priviliged minority and not the norm.

 

 

QUOTE...http://www.creditaction.org.uk/feb.html

Average household debt in the UK is ~ £8,985 (excluding mortgages). This figure increases to £20,895 if the average is based on the number of households who actually have some form of unsecured loan.

 

Average household debt in the UK is ~ £56,588 (including mortgages).

Average owed by every UK adult is ~ £29,684 (including mortgages). This grew by ~ £185 last month.

Average outstanding mortgage for the 11.8m households who currently have mortgages exceeded £100,000 for the first time and now stands at ~ £100,451.

Two fifths of mortgagors have secured debts of over £90,000, up from one fifth in 2004. UNQUOTE....

 

these are 2007 figures and are obviously a lot worse since the crunch came.

 

I find the figure of £20,895 AVERAGE household debt for households that have debt particularly frightening, particularly as this does not include those 100% plus mortgages that were so popular until this year. As some of these households may only owe a few hundred quid there have to be many who are now really in the doo doos.

[Cyclone]

On the other hand the fact that it's only £8985 when you include all households but £20895 when you look at the ones with debt implies to me that there are twice as many completely debt free households as those with any debt (ignoring mortgages).

[SHYTOT]

On the other hand the fact that it's only £8985 when you include all households but £20895 when you look at the ones with debt implies to me that there are twice as many completely debt free households as those with any debt (ignoring mortgages).

 

Exactly. And most of those totally debt free households are the older generation that don't have mortgages and can therefore use their disposable income to buy things rather than use the plastic.

[Cyclone]

I tell other people not to use anecdotes as proof, but I find it difficult to make these figures match my own experience.

As I said, I know plenty of people around the age of 30, some graduates, some didn't even do A levels. And I don't know a single person with a debt problem (not saying I don't know some with debt).