Have baby boomers ruined the UK economy?

by sickchip Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:29 pm

It can be argued baby boomers have lived well beyond their means - free university education, housing bought cheap and then rewards reaped as prices were unreasonably and greedily inflated, retiring with state pension at 60/65.

Basically they've borrowed their lifestyles, homes, holidays, etc against their children's and grandchildren's futures.

The present younger generations now face stagnating and low wages, property prices way beyond the reach of most and thus forced into higher rents, no realistic chance of starting a family, debt if they want further education, limits on their welfare/support, dysfunctional living environments, inflation and cost of living increasing faster than wages thus causing further hardships, etc, etc.

Are the post war generations guilty of selfishness, and neglecting to safeguard a reasonable quality of life for the young of today and tomorrow?

by boatlady Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:19 pm

Well, I dunno; I'm a baby boomer, and in a sense so is my husband.
I did get a free education; I worked in the public sector; I retired at 58 and I have an OK pension.
I think I contributed during my working life - now, in retirement I donate my time two days a week to an advice centre, and provide valuable informal care and support to friends, neighbours and relatives.
My husband, by the time he retires, will have worked a total of 50 years. He had a very basic education and has worked in the manufacturing sector most of his life. In his spare time, he does several hours per year of voluntary work as a member of Red Cross, and provides informal support to friends and neighbours. He also gives blood.
Most of my age group that I am still in contact with do some form of community or voluntary work, in hospitals, schools, charity shops etc etc, and most provide care for grand children or for elderly relations.

I guess my point might be, if you provide people with decent health care, access to adequate education and decent housing, they are then able to make a contribution to society that can't be quantified, but that is nevertheless valuable - and they are able to continue doing this well into old age.

If you deprive people of decent living standards, cut costs and corners on their education, health care and housing, deprive them of workplace rights and social security in its widest sense, maybe they're less able to contribute in those intangible ways that make a difference to us all.
Next time you go to a village fete, or a country fair, next time you need free legal advice, next time you are in a hospital - look around - you will see voluntary services staffed in the main by us 'selfish' baby boomers.

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:16 pm

The Coalition Ministry of Misinformation is in top gear now rubbishing the NHS, blaming Benefits Claimants for being poor, and now "baby boomers" for having been born at the right time, rather than now.

The Government does seem rather accident-prone, don't you think?

by sickchip Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:31 pm

boatlady,

But have your generation borrowed the chance to do all that and put future of todays generations up as guarantee?

If you could buy an average home in the 70's at three times the average salary, and you owned an average priced home now - £230k would you be prepared to sell that property now at 3x the average wage (approx £26k) - lets say £80k to a young person/couple......or would you want the 'market' value?

Why do baby boomers charge today's young for a university education when they themselves TOOK it for free?

by boatlady Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:53 pm

As it goes, my house is worth only about £80000 in today's market - according to Zoopla.
I never participated in the property boom myself - preferred to chip in so my mum could have a decent place to live. The money invested in her home may or may not come to me - depends if she has to go into care, in which case the value of her home will of course be used to finance that.
I didn't and don't support charging for University education - my strong belief is that it would be perfectly possible to invest the country's resources into providing the same opportunities I had - even after the dead bitch sold most of our assets back in the '80's.
I do think my generation was uniquely privileged, and I also believe the only thing preventing subsequent generations from having the same privileges has been a lack of political will to invest in the future of the population.
As I've said before, I was encouraged to see the measures put in place by the last Labour government in terms of social inclusion, and in my professional life was beginning to see some encouraging results - parents becoming more involved with their children's schooling, NHS patients beginning to have something of a voice in their own treatment etc.
No government has got everything right, and no doubt you can point to many instances of where the last Labour government seemed to let us all down - but in my lifetime I have never yet seen a government as BAD as this one, in terms of a vicious campaign against segments of the electorate, an ideologically-driven determination to destroy our remaining national resources, and to condemn our working class citizens to lives of poverty, humiliation and ignorance.
I do not accept that I or my generation are responsible for the wicked excesses of the bunch of rich Tory boys currently running the country into the ground. The resources are there to give everyone a life worth living - it only takes the political will to allocate resources appropriately.

by sickchip Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:47 pm

boatlady

Thanks for your excellent, considerate, and considered reply.

I agree with everything you are saying - especially about education. It seems our governments of recent years frequently get their priorities all wrong.

I kind of started this thread as devil's advocate as it is a frequently touted opinion these days. I was interested to see what fellow posters here thought.

Your reasoning, logic, and humanity shine through as usual, boatlady. Thanks again.

by boatlady Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:59 pm

I do concede, having had an experience of decent health care, access to education and all the paraphernalia of a benevolent State, my generation may well have been guilty of not thinking enough about politics and the ever present possibility of the current situation.

I have to confess, I never really thought about politics until 2010, when I was truly incensed by the treatment given to Gordon Brown, who always struck me as a thoroughly decent bloke. Up until then, I guess I just assumed everyone was just doing their best and wanted to make England a better place.

I even gave the dead bitch the benefit of the doubt - right up until the Falklands.

So, in a sense, you may be right - if I'm typical of my generation, I guess maybe we assumed human nature was a better thing than it turns out to be, and in that way, through complacency, maybe we let down the generations following.

by Penderyn Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:58 pm

No - it was the vanity of Shirley Williams that destroyed Britain.

by bobby Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Have baby boomers ruined the UK economy?

Absolutely not. I like many am a result from a sex starved soldier coming home after a horrific war.
After spending 6.5 years away from home, My dad always chose to take his leave local rather than waste half ( if not more) of his leave traveling.
When he was demobbed he was virtually told " Thanks Tom, now give us your gun, and go home and breed. This along with thousands of others he did, hence to population boom of 1947 and 48.

Although there was a large increase in births, especially those two years, I wonder if the number made up for the lack of births whilst the soldiers where away (swelling other countries birth figures).

The governments knew about the post war population explosion, and it was for them to implement policy and possibly taxes to pave the way for the transition..

I left school in 1963 and have been continuously in work either employed or as now self employed and didn’t know of one of my old school mates and other friends spend any time unemployed. Back after the war, we had full employment rebuilding Britain and building up our infrastructure, mostly business was booming and the economy expanding. Need gave us what we wanted and all seemed well till an completely evil bitch took control and we have had Tory Recession after Tory Recession ever since creating unemployment and the economy made worse to a point by those of the population explosion years putting their hands out for their pensions. Progressive Governments should have been prepared for the increase in demand, so an emphatic NO as to the population Boom children ruining the economy, it is all the blame of unprepared politicians.

by oftenwrong Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:54 am

" all the blame of unprepared politicians."

Part of the reason for not being prepared is the 4-years (now 5)-at-a-time career, which works against long-term planning. The same short-termism affects financial decisions in The City, because shareholders insist upon immediate gratification - like a newborn baby.

by methought Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:25 pm

Baby boomers broke the mould, ended the class system or at least changed its parameters, questioned the link between state and the personal life of the individual and allowed freedom to be a fact rather than an ideal.

Now tribalism of young versus old is raising its ugly head and the politics of envy is reaching into the heart of the family.

Just toryism in yet another guise

by sickchip Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:46 am

People really are extremely selfish. They're even happy to price their children out of the housing market - and hamper their ability to afford / start a family. They are happy for their children to be saddled with debt if they want an education, or be paid insultingly slave labour wages if they don't.

Selfishness has caused you to eff your children's futures and create a dysfunctional, de-politicised, confused, and dumbed down generation of young people.

...there is also an interesting article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/17/labour-coalition-promote-selfish-individualism#comment-26120546

by Curious Cdn Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:45 pm

I can't speak for the U.K. but we baby boomers have been uber-consumers all of our lives. This has very negative aspects for the state of our planet's environment but think of the economic boom that went along with our spendthrift ways. The entire British Rock/Pop music industry (must have been one of your largest exports for a couple of decades) came alive and thrived based on many millions of 45's, and albums bought over the years, for example. Our far more thrifty ancestors would never have blown money in such a manner but it turned out to be ultimately wealth generating. As I said, it must have been a major source of foreign trade for you ... as well as helping your Worldwide brand overall during a post-imperial period when it could have been no better than mud.

by oftenwrong Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:20 pm

To generate wealth, Producers require Consumers.
NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY.

by sickchip Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:47 pm

Curious Cdn wrote:I can't speak for the U.K. but we baby boomers have been uber-consumers all of our lives. This has very negative aspects for the state of our planet's environment but think of the economic boom that went along with our spendthrift ways. The entire British Rock/Pop music industry (must have been one of your largest exports for a couple of decades) came alive and thrived based on many millions of 45's, and albums bought over the years, for example. Our far more thrifty ancestors would never have blown money in such a manner but it turned out to be ultimately wealth generating. As I said, it must have been a major source of foreign trade for you ... as well as helping your Worldwide brand overall during a post-imperial period when it could have been no better than mud.

....and what now - what have you left for young people today and future generations?

by Curious Cdn Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:09 pm

Well, the wealth generation that was described in the above post was essentially from nothing to something. Wealth was generated purely from human creativity with relatively little natural resource use.

Go forth and create once more. Opportunities abound. Don't wait for it to come to you because it never will.

by sickchip Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:52 pm

Curious Cdn wrote:Well, the wealth generation that was described in the above post was essentially from nothing to something. Wealth was generated purely from human creativity with relatively little natural resource use.

Go forth and create once more. Opportunities abound. Don't wait for it to come to you because it never will.

.....oh! and free university education, reasonable house prices, affordable rents, better workers rights, unions, lower levels of inequality, greater opportunities for social mobility, etc....

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:44 pm

"The World belongs to everyone ....
The best things in Life are free."

The Best Things in Life are Free is a song written by B.G. DeSylva, Lew Brown, and Ray Henderson for the musical "Good News" which opened on September 6, 1927 in the 46th Street Theater in New York City.

by Curious Cdn Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:18 pm

sickchip wrote:
Curious Cdn wrote:Well, the wealth generation that was described in the above post was essentially from nothing to something. Wealth was generated purely from human creativity with relatively little natural resource use.

Go forth and create once more. Opportunities abound. Don't wait for it to come to you because it never will.
.....oh! and free university education, reasonable house prices, affordable rents, better workers rights, unions, lower levels of inequality, greater opportunities for social mobility, etc....

I'm a North American. We had /have no free university education. Social mobility was a side effect of mass migration, here. None of these things were "given", particularly. The big advantage that the Baby Boomers experienced was unprecedented material prosperity in a post-war world that, at the time, had no competition around the globe. This is slipping away, probably for good and younger generations have to compete against hungrier jurisdictions for jobs and resources.

by oftenwrong Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:37 pm

QUOTE: " The big advantage that the Baby Boomers experienced was unprecedented material prosperity in a post-war world that, at the time, had no competition around the globe."

How true. North America during the 1930s was not a happy place to be, but Pearl Harbour energised the entire continent into full employment and created a powerhouse of wartime activity that put US industry at the forefront of world trade. Then along came Reaganomics and the rest is still being worked out.

by Curious Cdn Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:18 pm

Well, I'm in Canada, so this place was "energized" a couple of years before Pearl Harbour. This was a poor country prior to the war and, afterward, one of the few that was unscathed by it.

by oftenwrong Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:21 pm

Perhaps "unscathed" might be debatable, due to the considerable losses suffered by Canadian Forces in Europe during WW2.

by Curious Cdn Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:49 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Perhaps "unscathed" might be debatable, due to the considerable losses suffered by Canadian Forces in Europe during WW2.

Yes, of course ... although the First World War was a far greater horror for the Canadians (and everyone else in the Imperial army) in every measurable way. Anyway, Canadian industry was modern, intact and manned by men and women who had come of age in wartime. The next generation, my generation ... stopped to smell the flowers a bit ... and buy some, as well.

by Penderyn Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:57 pm

Canada, the UK and everywhere else enjoys booms and busts not according to the generation but by the insane laws of capitalism, which will destroy us all within a few generations. Two of my Canadian relatives were killed in WW1, incidentally, and only one of my British ones. Before that their ancestors had been starved out of Cwm Tawe and bullied out of Chubut - doubtless because of bustles or something similar! I think we should sometimes stick to the obvious: capitalism kills.

by Curious Cdn Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:56 pm

Penderyn wrote:Canada, the UK and everywhere else enjoys booms and busts not according to the generation but by the insane laws of capitalism, which will destroy us all within a few generations. Two of my Canadian relatives were killed in WW1, incidentally, and only one of my British ones. Before that their ancestors had been starved out of Cwm Tawe and bullied out of Chubut - doubtless because of bustles or something similar! I think we should sometimes stick to the obvious: capitalism kills.

This is true but so, historically, has the "Left" in its varying forms. It is time for a whole new dynamic ... and not the return to feudalism that I see us marching toward, right now.

by Penderyn Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:12 pm

Curious Cdn wrote: This is true but so, historically, has the "Left" in its varying forms. It is time for a whole new dynamic ... and not the return to feudalism that I see us marching toward, right now.

'Left' is a safe word. Socialism is about political control by the vast majority who do all the work, and so far, alas, capitalist violence or the threat of it has always brought about the substitution of a party (like the Labour Party indeed) for that class. It is a large subject, but I think there is nothing in socialism that implies violence - the problem is rather the need for a party, with all the dangers that implies.

by Curious Cdn Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:28 pm

Penderyn wrote: 'Left' is a safe word. Socialism is about political control by the vast majority who do all the work, and so far, alas, capitalist violence or the threat of it has always brought about the substitution of a party (like the Labour Party indeed) for that class. It is a large subject, but I think there is nothing in socialism that implies violence - the problem is rather the need for a party, with all the dangers that implies.

You would like to think so but tens of millions of people died in the name of "Socialism" in the last century. You can argue that those regimes weren't "true" socialists but what they all have in common is the need to control individual behaviour. Many means were employed to do that from black mariahs to re-education camps to forced impoverishment. The problem isn't Socialism ... Capitalism ... Communism. The problem is "isms". Ideologies of any stripe just don't work when applied to basic human behavior. You have to apply force or economic privation to a certain segment of the population to get them to conform to your personal pet "ism".

by Penderyn Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:47 pm

Curious Cdn wrote: You would like to think so but tens of millions of people died in the name of "Socialism" in the last century. You can argue that those regimes weren't "true" socialists but what they all have in common is the need to control individual behaviour. Many means were employed to do that from black mariahs to re-education camps to forced impoverishment. The problem isn't Socialism ... Capitalism ... Communism. The problem is "isms". Ideologies of any stripe just don't work when applied to basic human behavior. You have to apply force or economic privation to a certain segment of the population to get them to conform to your personal pet "ism".

The term you want is 'state capitalist'. Apart from a few brief intervals, the capitalist murder-squads have always prevented economic democracy, sometimes leaving parties to run something that would fit into the capitalist mass-market, often having to introduce industry, with all the delights of that process, at the same time. Working people don't control individual behaviour, ever. The problem is simply that we allow the boss-class to control the means of killing. Socialism is the interest of the vast majority, and it won't make anyone do anything.

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

"Democracy" means simply rule by the will of the majority.

So there will always be a disgruntled minority.

S'obvious, innit?

by Curious Cdn Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:15 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Curious Cdn wrote: You would like to think so but tens of millions of people died in the name of "Socialism" in the last century. You can argue that those regimes weren't "true" socialists but what they all have in common is the need to control individual behaviour. Many means were employed to do that from black mariahs to re-education camps to forced impoverishment. The problem isn't Socialism ... Capitalism ... Communism. The problem is "isms". Ideologies of any stripe just don't work when applied to basic human behavior. You have to apply force or economic privation to a certain segment of the population to get them to conform to your personal pet "ism".

The term you want is 'state capitalist'. Apart from a few brief intervals, the capitalist murder-squads have always prevented economic democracy, sometimes leaving parties to run something that would fit into the capitalist mass-market, often having to introduce industry, with all the delights of that process, at the same time. Working people don't control individual behaviour, ever. The problem is simply that we allow the boss-class to control the means of killing. Socialism is the interest of the vast majority, and it won't make anyone do anything.

Since most of the equity and power of our civilization resides with those who will need it removed from them to establish the great Socialist Replacement, expect MAJOR and prolonged bloodshed for a generation or two to re-arrange the relationship. The victors, if they happen to be the Socialists will be almost surely be so changed by that process that you won't recognise either the people or their ideology, in the end.

The world has seen far too much bloodshed in the name of utopian "isms", already. It's time for a new paradigm.

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:19 pm

The largest manageable unit of human activity is The Family. As soon as the size of any group goes beyond that defining parameter there is a widening opportunity for discord and dissent.

by Penderyn Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:09 pm

Curious Cdn wrote: Since most of the equity and power of our civilization resides with those who will need it removed from them to establish the great Socialist Replacement, expect MAJOR and prolonged bloodshed for a generation or two to re-arrange the relationship. The victors, if they happen to be the Socialists will be almost surely be so changed by that process that you won't recognise either the people or their ideology, in the end.

The world has seen far too much bloodshed in the name of utopian "isms", already. It's time for a new paradigm.

The bloodshed, let's face it, always comes from those who, like you, oppose the interests of the vast majority. As of course you know.

by Curious Cdn Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:06 pm

Penderyn wrote: The bloodshed, let's face it, always comes from those who, like you, oppose the interests of the vast majority. As of course you know.

Yes, yes, the first ones shot, come the Revolution, will be sceptics like me who don't believe in Utopias. As far as opposing the "vast Majority", you know nothing about me, my situation and you simply cannot make a statement like that. Also, I come from a different culture (Canada) that has a surprisingly different class structure. Perhaps, my views are those of the vast majority, here. You likely don't know enough about us to come to any conclusions. (Hint: We more closely resemble a Scandinavian country than, say the United States).

by Penderyn Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:51 pm

Curious Cdn wrote: Yes, yes, the first ones shot, come the Revolution, will be sceptics like me who don't believe in Utopias. As far as opposing the "vast Majority", you know nothing about me, my situation and you simply cannot make a statement like that. Also, I come from a different culture (Canada) that has a surprisingly different class structure. Perhaps, my views are those of the vast majority, here. You likely don't know enough about us to come to any conclusions. (Hint: We more closely resemble a Scandinavian country than, say the United States).

Why should anyone be bothered to shoot bores?

by Curious Cdn Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:35 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Curious Cdn wrote: Yes, yes, the first ones shot, come the Revolution, will be sceptics like me who don't believe in Utopias. As far as opposing the "vast Majority", you know nothing about me, my situation and you simply cannot make a statement like that. Also, I come from a different culture (Canada) that has a surprisingly different class structure. Perhaps, my views are those of the vast majority, here. You likely don't know enough about us to come to any conclusions. (Hint: We more closely resemble a Scandinavian country than, say the United States).

Why should anyone be bothered to shoot bores?

Well, have a nice day and "Revolucion Viva!"

by Penderyn Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:32 pm

Curious Cdn wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Curious Cdn wrote: You would like to think so but tens of millions of people died in the name of "Socialism" in the last century. You can argue that those regimes weren't "true" socialists but what they all have in common is the need to control individual behaviour. Many means were employed to do that from black mariahs to re-education camps to forced impoverishment. The problem isn't Socialism ... Capitalism ... Communism. The problem is "isms". Ideologies of any stripe just don't work when applied to basic human behavior. You have to apply force or economic privation to a certain segment of the population to get them to conform to your personal pet "ism".

The term you want is 'state capitalist'. Apart from a few brief intervals, the capitalist murder-squads have always prevented economic democracy, sometimes leaving parties to run something that would fit into the capitalist mass-market, often having to introduce industry, with all the delights of that process, at the same time. Working people don't control individual behaviour, ever. The problem is simply that we allow the boss-class to control the means of killing. Socialism is the interest of the vast majority, and it won't make anyone do anything.
Since most of the equity and power of our civilization resides with those who will need it removed from them to establish the great Socialist Replacement, expect MAJOR and prolonged bloodshed for a generation or two to re-arrange the relationship. The victors, if they happen to be the Socialists will be almost surely be so changed by that process that you won't recognise either the people or their ideology, in the end.

The world has seen far too much bloodshed in the name of utopian "isms", already. It's time for a new paradigm.

I don't understand what you are saying. You mean those who live by exploiting and killing will kill sooner than allow democracy? We know that, and that is the problem. The vast majority of humans will not be changed much: the trouble is that the scumbags try to force the leaders of humanity into their own image, as you know. The world will see a bloody sight more bloodshed unless we replace these scum.

by Curious Cdn Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:03 pm

Penderyn wrote:
Curious Cdn wrote:
Penderyn wrote:
Curious Cdn wrote: You would like to think so but tens of millions of people died in the name of "Socialism" in the last century. You can argue that those regimes weren't "true" socialists but what they all have in common is the need to control individual behaviour. Many means were employed to do that from black mariahs to re-education camps to forced impoverishment. The problem isn't Socialism ... Capitalism ... Communism. The problem is "isms". Ideologies of any stripe just don't work when applied to basic human behavior. You have to apply force or economic privation to a certain segment of the population to get them to conform to your personal pet "ism".

The term you want is 'state capitalist'. Apart from a few brief intervals, the capitalist murder-squads have always prevented economic democracy, sometimes leaving parties to run something that would fit into the capitalist mass-market, often having to introduce industry, with all the delights of that process, at the same time. Working people don't control individual behaviour, ever. The problem is simply that we allow the boss-class to control the means of killing. Socialism is the interest of the vast majority, and it won't make anyone do anything.
Since most of the equity and power of our civilization resides with those who will need it removed from them to establish the great Socialist Replacement, expect MAJOR and prolonged bloodshed for a generation or two to re-arrange the relationship. The victors, if they happen to be the Socialists will be almost surely be so changed by that process that you won't recognise either the people or their ideology, in the end.

The world has seen far too much bloodshed in the name of utopian "isms", already. It's time for a new paradigm.
I don't understand what you are saying. You mean those who live by exploiting and killing will kill sooner than allow democracy? We know that, and that is the problem. The vast majority of humans will not be changed much: the trouble is that the scumbags try to force the leaders of humanity into their own image, as you know. The world will see a bloody sight more bloodshed unless we replace these scum.

... and you will get money and power from the scumbags by saying: "Hand it over now, please." ?

... or will you follow the traditional path of armed insurrection leading to things like "political re-education" or cleansing or whatever your particular "ism" will allow. Pol Pot thought that he was doing tremendous and essential good, you know.

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:36 pm

Or you can get democratically elected to Office and soak the population for half what they earn.

by Curious Cdn Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Or you can get democratically elected to Office and soak the population for half what they earn.

Income taxation is a temporary measure in this country ... brought in under the War Measures Act of 1914 and it will soon be rescinded just as soon as the crisis is over.

by **Ivan** Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:56 pm

Penderyn wrote:.....Curious Cdn wrote:.....Penderyn wrote:.....Curious Cdn wrote

PLEASE observe the posting tips! headbang

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

by Sponsored content