Well I am certainly old enough to have seen him play in the flesh many times and the accusation that the ladder was pulled definitely has basis in fact. However, I would also agree with @Dane that the whole “OK Boomer” thing is lazily deployed.
So you don’t think previous generations had it easy, you’ve just read that others think they had it easy?
I don’t think they had it easy, I’m explaining what others have said about it.
I am more sympathetic with the idea that you can’t generalise easily across generations. Sure, on the whole housing was more affordable in the 70s, and I’ve seen my parents raise children in conditions that will be out of reach to those of my contemporaries who would have had similar backgrounds and jobs.
But I won’t be making a generalisation unless there’s hard data, and even generalisations like these will be something that is visible only over a population level, and one that individual stories will not show.
EDIT: I also bloody hate lazy stereotypes based on generations.
1 Like
Not detracting from genuine hardships that the younger generation face, there was a discussion a short while ago about some lad in an article talking about his hardships.
It was widely accepted that he was spending beyond his means.
Genuine hardships
- Not being able to afford food for a healthy lifestyle.
- Struggling to pay basic energy bills.
- Not being able to adequately clothe your children.
- Struggling to pay rent/mortgage in affordable housing.
These hardships have been in existence for many people for decades.
What you didn’t have to factor into monthly expenditure in previous times.
Extortionate TV viewing costs.
Extortionate portable devices.
Fast food and convenient ready meals.
Brand name clothing.
Just a handful of examples of “must have” items these days, which aren’t in the slightest bit “must have”
1 Like
He’s spending beyond his means. So at some point, he will pay for it.
The cohort born from 1946-1965 lived their childhood during a time when the State was dominated by Keynesian thinking, which meant deficit, debt, and more debt. Collectively, they were spending beyond their means. In most societies, social services and similar are most heavily used by the young and the old. It is not a coincidence that as that generation aged out of that stage of life and entered the stage where people tend to start accumulating assets, across the West suddenly all that had to stop. Taxes had to go down, belts had to tighten, etc., debt had to be repaid. Thatcher was hardly unique.
For the generation coming after though, the effect has been pretty brutal. A child born in 1970 will not see $1/£1 of government service over their lifetime per dollar/pound spent (independent of whether they do personally). A child born in 1950 will approach 1.50 in some countries. The next generation has been paying the bill run up by the previous one for most of their lives.
and it is no coincidence at all that now that that cohort is reaching a period of increasing dependency, suddenly the reduced social services they have been voting for for most of their adult lives are a problem
1 Like
Which Google page did you paste that from? 
Seems feasible and explanatory.
Doesn’t make the statement about previous generations (Boomers) having it easy less ridiculously inaccurate and a product of lazy generalisations.
Didn’t need Google, I am a Gen X economist - and while there are obviously variations within the population, the simple fact of the matter is baby boomers were born into the surging post-war economy, enjoyed the benefit of the Keynesian state, then dismantled it. That very much sounds like having it easy. The fact that they in so doing generally gutted the support for the aging generation ahead of them that endured genuine hardship during World War 2 and then built the postwar infrastructure that would benefit their children just makes that baby boomer generation a bunch of twats, as a lazy generalization.
3 Likes
Always had you down as the smarter, less redical and judgemental sort, but oh well.
I did not realise that this teacher is still in hiding. Looks like he has been been hung out to dry. I thought we had learned from Rotherham that we have to insist on rule of law no matter what community the perpetrators come from.
My 1947-born mother loves this line of discussion…
She sounds smart
Well I think the thing here is that no law exists. With Rotherham, the authorities chose not to apply existing laws (and Rotherham was related more to the community that the victims came from.)
I’m surprised that they didn’t chose to include schools alongside other public service buildings. I know that the anti-abortionists caused trouble outside the general hospital near where I lived in Scotland. I walked my dogs in the grounds and on more than one occasion, I ended up accompanying nurses out as they assumed, probably correctly, that the protestors were less likely to bother someone if they were with a big bloke with dogs.
In what way? The grooming gangs were overwhelmingly from the Pakistani community. The abuse in the town was widespread and the police and council had known about it for over ten years but chose not to act. Would that have been the case if the children were asian and the grooming gangs white? I may be wrong but I doubt it. Is it not the case that they were more worried about the repercussions of upsetting that community?
The victims were nearly all known to social services and/or police. They chose to turn a blind eye to it and rationalised it as them having made “lifestyle choices” despite the fact that most of them were underage.
At the time they made some claim that they couldn’t act because of political correctness gone mad but you have to ask yourselves what would have happened if the victims were from a “respectable” middle class background.
I have heard that the investigations uncovered things that were more unsavoury but that hasn’t, for the most part, come into the public realm.
1 Like
Don’t disagree with any of this.
Breaking these down one by one, what do you view as extortionate TV viewing costs? I don’t really watch TV so I’m not that familiar with the costs involved.
What do you define as an extortionate portable device?
With regards to fast food and convenient ready meals, I think it should be noted that when someone is less well-off, they also tend to have less time. Furthermore, poverty also has a negative effect on cognitive resources: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
1 Like
1984: A 20% deposit for a home was 66% of the average annual wage. After saving for that 20% deposit, annual mortgage repayments were 12.7% of annual income (11.5% interest rate).
Today: In 2023 a 20% deposit for a home was 202% of the average annual wage. After years of saving for that deposit, annual mortgage repayments are 50% of wages ( using present day 6% interest rates)
Sauce: Buying a house in the 80s versus today
The most disgusting part in all this is that even after entering adulthood in by far the best years of human existence, and being in a position to have their house paid off early to purchase second, third, fourth homes depending on how greedy they were (we are talking about Boomers so the answer is “very”), and having absolutely zero household financial pressure in these recent awful years, plus all the other benefits Boomers had in those years, they are the main instigators of a clusterfuck like Brexit just because they wanted more.
I don’t think Heywood’s “Give him an inch” has ever applied so perfectly across one group of people.
4 Likes
Btw, also not in either category, already on the property ladder, been in a financial position to BTL but morally it’s not something I could ever contemplate.
So not bitter. But anybody defending boomers really have NFI.
the baby boomers who had everything handed to them
Damn, never thought that suggesting this wasn’t true would have got so many knickers in a twist.
I submit.
EVERYONE except todays generation has had it so easy, the cunts
Yeah nah. Just yours.
1 Like
Yep.
I’ve done fuck all for what I have.
Never encountered a hardship in my life.
Everything handed to me on a plate.
Have a great day