The younger generation.

[DR_Pingu]

Of course the young have fire in their bellies. It takes huge guts and motivation to start a protest on Facebook or take part in the ice bucket challenge.

As if that's ever going to make a difference.

If you'd actually read about it and seen what the cause was about then perhaps you'd have seen it was to raise awareness for something which is severely underfunded as far as treatment and care goes. Also, some of those affected by the condition it regards were brought to tears becuase of the support shown by millions of effectively strangers worldwide.

My daughter who started at Durham this year tells me she's shocked at how many students don't do any work and spend all their time drunk or asleep.

And that means the entire generation is full of lazy **** heads how?

I form all my opinions based on what one person I know has said as well.

Haha, I have time for this

I'd personally say that, recent generations are too soft and far too stupid for the world's growing complexities.

Needs a good pruning.

Too soft is incorrect - the parents are, and that's why the kids you see nowadays have an unbelievable mouth on them, let alone their actions and ignorance. Again though, that applies to a select few, I've seen and helped plenty of kids younger than me and they're most definitely on the right track to growing up to be a mature adult. <--- same applies to all generations.

If one word can describe our present youth it's immaturity.

If one word can ignorantly describe our present elder generation it's (ironically) ignorance.

Is that the same young people who think nothing of maxing out their credit cards on the latest must have? This generation appear to be lacking a 'kill switch' when it comes to self-restraint. You only need to look at the OCUK Apple forum every time a new product is released to see that.

Just like the fact that teen pregnancies were higher %age wise than nowadays a good few decades back? Perhaps they could've done with a 'kill-switch' which closed their legs - perhaps some of the terrible parents and grandparents that exist today might not have, further contributing to the amount of stupid people within my own generation, let alone the next, and thereafter. (I'm 22 for everyone's information). Got to page 5 and thought I'd grabbed enough quotes to give my own input.

I've been in work since the age of 13, been taught the importance and meaning of money and how it should be - if I wanted something, it was my own bank account it was coming from - of course my parents had given me savings, but the most expensive thing I had spend that on before earning my own proper income was a Nintendo DS for about £150 or however much they were when they first came out. If you can't work out from this that I pay for literally everything off of my own back then... you're stupid.

Truth is, there will always be lazy people, stupid people, geniuses, sportspeople, and all the other potential categorisations - and that's the way it's been generation upon generation. Those moaning about us young folk have reason to moan, but don't moan and generalise my entire generation because that's what stupid people do, plain and simple (consider that ironic, but hey-ho).

I suggest people watch the film Idiocracy - it's exactly what's happening today. The Earth is unsustainable with the amount of people alive on it today, to an insane amount (nearly 10x overpopulated to Scientist estimations).

I can go on for days about this, I'm pretty strongly opinionated (who would've guessed!) but I consider myself pretty switched on with current affairs. Feel free to judge me, or question me, I'll get back to you when possible

Have a good evening all, I hope it doesn't snow 'cause snow sucks!

 

[Faustus]

This ^ is entirely right.

The baby boomer generation benefited from the biggest upsurge in social mobility the country has ever seen. Priavte quality education delivered through the state (Grammar schools), Jobs for life, final salary pensions, Low house prices coupled with massive house price inflation and interest rate collapse, a surging domestic demand fueling economic growth coupled with the country leaving behind its crutches as the economic sick man of europe.....

This generation were able to provide a lifestyle to their children off the back of relatively little effort and talent, that the younger generation cannot hope to match (but were brought up to expect). The boomers (and early Generation X-ers) continue to out-compete their children in the housing markets, buying up buy-to-let and 2nd homes, whilst holding on to the majority of the higher paid employment positions (a large demographic group), and wielding the greatest voting power in the country's ballot to ensure their position is protected.

Worth also remembering the respective state pension burdens these two generations are facing/faced. The boomers had a tiny retirement demographic to support, whereas their retirement, in all of its magnitude and longevity, with be a massive cross to bear for the coming workforce.

On top of all this, they have the downright arrogance to criticise the "youth of today" for failing to make the same strides as they did, without acknowledging the disadvantages of the legacy they themselves have passed down.

Well let's examine this in more detail - The baby boomer generation are normally referred to as those born post-war 1946 to 1955. Only now are many of them coming up to retirement. Oh look! successive governments have known since that time a lot of people would be retiring between now and 2020. Surprise surprise this government raise the retirement age and many pensions are now much poorer than those of say 10 years ago. Most employers have closed final salary schemes and moved their workforce onto stock market based schemes - foul, many baby boomers could rightly claim.

Housing - this is about supply and demand. The fact is not enough houses have been built in this country for many years. Another fact, we cannot keep building houses, basically we are a small country and we have too many people in it. House developers hang onto land forcing the price up - capitalism not baby boomers.

Employment - the 55 to 65 age group are now the largest section of unemployed people, many of whom have little chance of ever being employed again.

You have to remember that workers paying into a pension have been doing so for perhaps the last 40 years and quite often two schemes. It's not as though they haven't contributed, they have, a great deal.

Voting - the largest voting demographic is the younger generation not the older generation. The fact that younger people cannot be bothered to vote is hardly the fault of the older generation. You are also getting dirt cheap interest rates on your mortgages whilst pensioners relying on their savings for income are getting next to nothing.

I'm glad to see you haven't let the facts get in the way of your skewed view of life though.

 

[MatteH Oxford]

Housing - this is about supply and demand. The fact is not enough houses have been built in this country for many years. Another fact, we cannot keep building houses, basically we are a small country and we have too many people in it. House developers hang onto land forcing the price up - capitalism not baby boomers.
.

If that were the case then why did average prices drop by nealry 20% 07-09, because the UK certainly didn't have a sudden jump in the amount of houses in existance.

Supply and demand (and price) of credit is surely the more correct answer?

 

[cheesyboy]

Well let's examine this in more detail - The baby boomer generation are normally referred to as those born post-war 1946 to 1955. Only now are many of them coming up to retirement. Oh look! successive governments have known since that time a lot of people would be retiring between now and 2020. Surprise surprise this government raise the retirement age and many pensions are now much poorer than those of say 10 years ago. Most employers have closed final salary schemes and moved their workforce onto stock market based schemes - foul, many baby boomers could rightly claim.

Housing - this is about supply and demand. The fact is not enough houses have been built in this country for many years. Another fact, we cannot keep building houses, basically we are a small country and we have too many people in it. House developers hang onto land forcing the price up - capitalism not baby boomers.

Employment - the 55 to 65 age group are now the largest section of unemployed people, many of whom have little chance of ever being employed again.

You have to remember that workers paying into a pension have been doing so for perhaps the last 40 years and quite often two schemes. It's not as though they haven't contributed, they have, a great deal.

Voting - the largest voting demographic is the younger generation not the older generation. The fact that younger people cannot be bothered to vote is hardly the fault of the older generation. You are also getting dirt cheap interest rates on your mortgages whilst pensioners relying on their savings for income are getting next to nothing.

I'm glad to see you haven't let the facts get in the way of your skewed view of life though.

Facts? You have merely shifted blame rather than refute any of the factors I presented. Regardless of the fault, that generation nonetheless greatly benefited, where the "youth of today" will not.

Going down your paragraphs in order;

Yes, governments ****ed over today's youth by failing to budget for upcoming pension burdens. But they did so to the benefit of todays older generation; spending the NI contributions elsewhere (or simply keeping the NI rate exceedingly low).

Yes, government ****ed over today's youth by failing to ensure policy for housing market supply to meet demand. Again it was to the benefit of older generations, who were able to buy cheap (and often even somewhat subsidised - right to buy) and gently accumulate huge capital for minimal outlay. This wasn't just down to simple supply/demand, but also a result of the country moving from high inflation and high interest to something more stable. Again the previous generation benefited where today's young will not.

Your unemployment paragraph is pure fiction. 4.4% unemployment for 50 to 64 year olds in Feb 2014, compared with 18% for 18 to 24 year olds. Per ONS, summarised here;
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/05/unemployment-statistics-age-divide-recession

Inflation adjusted lifetime NI contributions for people retiring in the next 10 years are miles short of their likely pension benefit drawdown (based on life expectancy).

The 50 to 65 demographic is bigger in numbers than 16 to 30, and is much more likely to turn out at the polls. This retains their importance to policy decision. It's a vicious circle for the youth vote; they don't tend to vote as much, so policy doesn't favour them, and policy not favouring them increases their disenchantment and detachment from politics, so they vote less.

You suffer the same as the rest of your generation; too high up on your horse to see the struggles below or the helping hands you were given.

Edit:
ps. the Baby boomer generation runs up until the mid-60s. Then Generation X until the early 80s. The sweep of my brush in that original post was mostly talking about a generation of parents of today's working age youth - i.e. those born between approximately 1950 and perhaps as late as 1970.

 

[drakioned]

Okay. Lets look over this.

Well let's examine this in more detail - The baby boomer generation are normally referred to as those born post-war 1946 to 1955.

Actually I don't see that definition anywhere. If I look up baby boomers, most definitions I see are for 1946-1964 (not that this is a particularly big deal)

1 2 3

Housing - this is about supply and demand. The fact is not enough houses have been built in this country for many years. Another fact, we cannot keep building houses, basically we are a small country and we have too many people in it. House developers hang onto land forcing the price up - capitalism not baby boomers.

World Bank population density (2010-2014):
Hong Kong - 6,845 per sq km
Netherlands - 498 per sq km
Belgium - 370 per sq km
Japan - 349 per sq km
UK - 265 per sq km

Small country and too many people doesn't seem supported by the facts, even if it's a popular opinion amongst Conservative and UKIP voters (another largely boomer phenomenon).

This article suggests some reasons why we're not building houses: Why the nimbys are winning the UK's housing battles. The 18 year olds are not the NIMBYs. They are not the group interested in keeping the value of their homes high.

Employment - the 55 to 65 age group are now the largest section of unemployed people, many of whom have little chance of ever being employed again.

cheesyboy dealt with this already

Voting - the largest voting demographic is the younger generation not the older generation.

cheesyboy touched on this, but didn't support this with the numbers.

So. 15-30 compared to 50-65 according to 2011 Census
15-19 = 3,870,000 (in 2011, only the 19 year olds would have been able to vote at the last election, so let's say 1m to be generous)
20-24 = 4,171,000
25-29 = 4,183,000
=> 9.3m

50-54 = 3,978,000
55-59 = 3,515,000
60-64 = 3,713,000
=> 11.2m

This is not counting the fact those census numbers will include foreigners ineligible to vote, who are much more likely to be in the 15-29 than 50-64.

I'm glad to see you haven't let the facts get in the way of your skewed view of life though.

 

[Billies Bangers]

Okay. Lets look over this.


Actually I don't see that definition anywhere. If I look up baby boomers, most definitions I see are for 1946-1964 (not that this is a particularly big deal)

1 2 3



World Bank population density (2010-2014):
Hong Kong - 6,845 per sq km
Netherlands - 498 per sq km
Belgium - 370 per sq km
Japan - 349 per sq km
UK - 265 per sq km

Small country and too many people doesn't seem supported by the facts, even if it's a popular opinion amongst Conservative and UKIP voters (another largely boomer phenomenon).

This article suggests some reasons why we're not building houses: Why the nimbys are winning the UK's housing battles. The 18 year olds are not the NIMBYs. They are not the group interested in keeping the value of their homes high

cheesyboy dealt with this already



cheesyboy touched on this, but didn't support this with the numbers.

So. 15-30 compared to 50-65 according to 2011 Census
15-19 = 3,870,000 (in 2011, only the 19 year olds would have been able to vote at the last election, so let's say 1m to be generous)
20-24 = 4,171,000
25-29 = 4,183,000
=> 9.3m

50-54 = 3,978,000
55-59 = 3,515,000
60-64 = 3,713,000
=> 11.2m

This is not counting the fact those census numbers will include foreigners ineligible to vote, who are much more likely to be in the 15-29 than 50-64.

Where are the Middle voter segment 29 to 50 as Fautus info was 50 to 64?

Boomer period 46 to 64 improves Faustus argument, though when I was growing up the lower figure was oft quoted.

Do we really want our green and pleasant land concreting over and becoming even less food self-sufficient?

When the over fifties lose their jobs they are the segment least likely to find employment again. That is despite evidence that shows they are the most reliable, have a wealth of experience and the least likely to take time off sick.

 

[Richie]

Truth is, there will always be lazy people, stupid people, geniuses, sportspeople, and all the other potential categorisations - and that's the way it's been generation upon generation. Those moaning about us young folk have reason to moan, but don't moan and generalise my entire generation because that's what stupid people do, plain and simple (consider that ironic, but hey-ho).

Making arguments and discussions about segments of population is ALWAYS going to be a generalisation. There is no way around it. If this is a problem and people are going to get upset because "I am in that demographic but I am not lazy/stupid/ignorant so dont paint me with the same brush" then we can't have a discussion about it at all.

 

[Ryan-3]

Pretty much what I've been trying to say all along but better put. Good post.

To go with that post - which I agree with - I've been told of jobs where the dinner break consisted of a quick lunch, closest pub for a few pints and returning to work and taking it easy. Back in the good old days working with the public sector, eh.

 

[DR_Pingu]

Making arguments and discussions about segments of population is ALWAYS going to be a generalisation. There is no way around it. If this is a problem and people are going to get upset because "I am in that demographic but I am not lazy/stupid/ignorant so dont paint me with the same brush" then we can't have a discussion about it at all.

Which is an immature way to go about it in my opinion. If I said all old people are miserable gits who don't like change I'm sure enough would pipe up with the same thing of "don't tar us all with the same brush". There's young and old alike who contribute well to the advancement of society, but we're in a shortfall because of the unnecessary over-breeding, benefit scrounging society - typically of a lower IQ and a bland attitude to work - expects £40k a year for a cleaning job, which is why plenty of the moaning Brits nowadays (young and 'old' alike) are out of work. Again going back to watch the film Idiocracy because we're certainly heading in that direction.

 

[Billies Bangers]

To go with that post - which I agree with - I've been told of jobs where the dinner break consisted of a quick lunch, closest pub for a few pints and returning to work and taking it easy. Back in the good old days working with the public sector, eh.

Poor sods. I've gone to the pub at lunchtime to conduct some business and not gone back for the rest of the day - private sector.

 

[estebanrey]

Poor sods. I've gone to the pub at lunchtime to conduct some business and not gone back for the rest of the day - private sector.

I work in the Public Sector. Just before Xmas my boss was given a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale (he's a Geordie) and he opened it and shared it out. I had half a very small cup of it and the looks/comments I got from some of my co-workers were astounding.

You'd have thought I'd pulled out a gun.

 

[The_Abyss]

Baby boomers are the most significant demographic for politicians. Don't worry though, Generation X, your time will come very soon, although Generation Y could usurp you if they're politically active enough.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/uk-population-pyramid---dvc1/index.html

 

[Richie]

Which is an immature way to go about it in my opinion. If I said all old people are miserable gits who don't like change I'm sure enough would pipe up with the same thing of "don't tar us all with the same brush".

Of course, so how do you suggest having a discussion about demographics without generalising them?

A lot in this thread, for example, are laying blame with the baby-boomers. Does this mean ALL baby-boomers are affluent with big houses they got cheap and have large gold plated pensions who have also "shafted the young"? Is this not another generalisation?

 

[DR_Pingu]

Of course, so how do you suggest having a discussion about demographics without generalising them?

A lot in this thread, for example, are laying blame with the baby-boomers. Does this mean ALL baby-boomers are affluent with big houses they got cheap and have large gold plated pensions who have also "shafted the young"? Is this not another generalisation?

Ok I can see where I'm going wrong here, but still it's irritating enough being 'tarred' when I'm far from lazy and inconsiderate, as do (clearly) the 'baby boomer' lot here who quite obviously don't like being tarred themselves. It's hypocritical, if not ironic!

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I guess I'm a Baby Boomer then as I was born in 1965.

Personally, I didn't expect to be given anything by the government after I completely my free state education to age 16. On starting employment shortly after leaving school, I was warned that the State Pension wasn't going to be sufficient for my generation as everyone was living longer than expected already. This was in 1982.

I get the feeling that a good portion of the generation after mine has expected life to hand them everything they want on a silver platter and unsurprisingly get the raving hump with the world when this doesn't happen.

Blaming all your woes on someone/something else and wallowing in self-pity rather than getting off their bums and grafting to achieve what they want seems to be fairly popular as well.

 

[DR_Pingu]

Blaming all your woes on someone/something else and wallowing in self-pity rather than getting off their bums and grafting to achieve what they want seems to be fairly popular as well.

This goes for all people, young and old.

 

[Billies Bangers]

Ok I can see where I'm going wrong here, but still it's irritating enough being 'tarred' when I'm far from lazy and inconsiderate, as do (clearly) the 'baby boomer' lot here who quite obviously don't like being tarred themselves. It's hypocritical, if not ironic!

I think if you go back to the start of this thread Mr Faustus stated that people down his local were having a discussion about the younger generation lacking a bit of fire in their bellies etc. There was also mention that many people today appear to be more interested in themselves and having the latest gadgets.

This I feel was quite a reasonable topic for discussion. However, many younger people in this thread immediately became defensive calling the older generation 'gits' and accusing people born after the war years up until 1955 of robbing the present generation and wanting everything for themselves.

That is a massive over generalisation and patently not true, nor does it recognise the privations that generation went through in order to secure improvements to living standards which we all enjoy today.

What certain posters appear to be saying is if I'm poor everyone else should be poor too. If my generation had taken that stance then where would society be today?

 

[Billies Bangers]

When I listen to younger people at work discussing finances, mortgages and aspirations etc. I often think I have slipped into a parallel universe.

They talk about borrowing what I think are staggering amounts of money to fund their dream lives without any thought to what might happen if things go wrong. They borrow up to the max without building any contingency into their plans.

What's more important mum staying at home until the baby reaches infant school or the flashy house, new car and the ubiquitous holiday abroad? Not the baby certainly if the people I work with are typical.

I don't think programmes such as Grand Designs, Restoration Homes or Wanted Down Under to mention but a few are helpful. They further the view that money grows on trees and obtaining it is just a matter of asking.

There's a world of difference between aspiration and unrealistic expectations.

 

[platypus]

And what certain posters appear to be doing is absolving their generation of any of the blame for the predicament we're in now.

I'm not poor, I had a privileged upbringing. I work hard, I earn well and will hopefully retire well as a result.

I still see the older generations doing their level best to remove the privileges they had from the younger generations.

 

[RoboCod]

I guess I'm a Baby Boomer then as I was born in 1965.

Personally, I didn't expect to be given anything by the government after I completely my free state education to age 16. On starting employment shortly after leaving school, I was warned that the State Pension wasn't going to be sufficient for my generation as everyone was living longer than expected already. This was in 1982.

I get the feeling that a good portion of the generation after mine has expected life to hand them everything they want on a silver platter and unsurprisingly get the raving hump with the world when this doesn't happen.

Blaming all your woes on someone/something else and wallowing in self-pity rather than getting off their bums and grafting to achieve what they want seems to be fairly popular as well.

I guess the argument is, your generation raised them to be like that, so who is responsible for all this?