To think that not all old people have worked hard all their lives...

[MrsKittyFane]

Go on, flame me.

Well if it wasn't for all the previous men and old men ,now, that were conscripted into the army, then we wouldn't have the Europe that we know today, or come to think of it,the multi-cultural "problems".

The whole country was involved in the war effort.

The welfare state was a thank you for all that was achieved, it isn't their fault it has been fucked up.

Also being female we had the security of never having to fight, or go front line, just saying.

I would rather have my life with all the rights etc than my GM had, we have a lot to feel grateful for through the ages.

Even those in poverty in this country will never know the hardships that they had, especially if they are working class, but all women were still in danger of dying in childbirth/infant mortality etc, give them a break.

Birds
The whole country was involved in the war effort.

The whole country. So laziness, greed and entitlement are new character traits?

Of course some have and some haven't. But the standard working week did used to be longer than now - it was standard for people to work Monday to Friday and Saturday morning for example. Holidays were usually less as well.

Some old people worked hard ,some didn't.
Some young people work hard ,some don't.
My mum worked hard bringing us up in a house with no bathroom or heating.
My dad worked hard all his life and died just before he retired.

Not everyone on MN lived a nice cosy MC life when they were growing up.

No, but we wouldn't have the country that we have today, there were promises made to that generation.

It depends what you call hard work, i think sitting behind a computer and doing paper work is piss easy compared to my fathers job in the merchant navy and previous mining jobs etc.

YANBU obviously. My grandparents did have it hard when they were young, for example having to leave school at 14 (even though my grandad could have trained to be a doctor according to the local GP), but then I don't think they especially worked harder than most people now e.g. my gran was an SAHM even when all my aunties were teenagers. It's kind of amusing when people go on about older people having worked hard in the same breath as bitching at single mothers who are doing exactly the same as most of the female half of that generation did! But I also think the 'working hard' ideology is utter nonsense anyway- life can be very hard without work being anything to do with it, and I don't think that someone who 'works hard' at building landmines/selling dodgy deals to the vulnerable from a call centre is a good person. This is the bit of Marxism that makes sense, when they say 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'- what people get should be based on need not on moral judgements. I don't want old people to live in poverty any more than I want single mothers or disabled people to live in poverty, and there is no reason why either should when there is clearly enough to go round for the rich.

Yeah Birds my and DP's office based jobs are much esaier than the manual work my dad did or the part time work with childcare and housework my mum did. I think for middle class people such as teachers there position has got slightly worse as their jobs are probably more stressful now and costs such as houses are more expensive. There was also more job security.

But I think in large working class people did have it harder in the past. Job security certainly didn't exist for many lower paid jobs, although it did for some. People worked more often in dangerous working conditions and worked longer standard working weeks for less holiday. Both my male GPs and an uncle died of illnesses caused by working conditions that these days would be illegal.

Also contrary to popular opinion, in most working class families in unskilled or semi skilled labour, the woman did work. Sometimes this was piece work at home rather than going out of the home. But women in this situation generally were not SAHM without paid work.

My mum did part time work , cleaning ,dinner lady etc
A lot of the woman of her generation worked in hosiery factories.

My MiL has never done a day's paid work in her life. Having been widowed a few years ago after a loving marriage to a hard working and prudent man, she now lives on a number of pensions totalling almost £40k pa.

I think its sad that the baby boomer generation are the only generation who have had it so good. Past governments have only done right for one generation of old people.Thats something all these so-called politicians should be ashamed of. My grandparents[pre baby boomers] either died before they retired or died shortly after retirement with hardly anything to their name.My parents and in-laws are enjoying a wonderfully wealthy and healthy retirement. But for many of my generation i think we will work til we drop.

i don't think it was that great for older people. My M in Law was not allowed the chances I have and had to leave school at 16 to work even though she was at a grammar school etc.

My parents were born in the war and not from well off backgrounds but my dad did go to university in the 50's and managed to avoid National Service. Yes houses were cheaper etc but I think most people did not want as much as today and both my parents worked.

My dad left school at 14 and my mum left at 15 - and she went to a grammar school. But both came from poor families who needed them to be working full time asap. My mum said when she started work she gave all her wage to her mum and her mum gave her back the money for bus fares and lunch - and that was it.

My mother didn't work. She lazed around on benefits and told me that it wasn't worth her while getting a job. She's old now.

what age would you say baby boomers are -in their sixties?

my dad worked all his life then died age 65 just after he retired, my mum had ''little'' jobs yes for what was called pin money - cleaning at butlins, working at the sausage factory (within sch hours, us kids never knew she had a job til years later), later in care homes, now is elderly and frail herself

I have read that I am one of the last of the babyboomers. I will be 50 this year. I am not retired, may never be able to, do not own a property, have worked since I was 14.

Baby boomers are the generation born after WW2 - so the oldest of them will be 66 now.
They are the generation who were never conscriped to fight a war, did not have to do national service, got free university education with grants etc. (in slightly higher numbers than the previous generation, although not todays numbers). However, it was easier to get a good job without a degree then - you didn't need a degree to be a teacher or librarian for example. The NHS was available to them practically from birth as was family allowance (child benefit)

They are the first generation for whom home ownership was a possibility for the masses too.

Granted people in their 80's & older had a significantly harder life than we do - but they are not the generation who are resented nearly as much.

DF left school at 14, worked outdoors all his life, served in RAF as well. Became self-employed after war, managed somehow to buy a small property in the country which he worked to support himself and later his family. He worked 6-7 days a week pretty much until he had a heart attack at 68. He then cut down to part time until he died at 84. Never went abroad, rarely took a holiday (usually went to stay with a relative).
DM left school at 14, worked in factories until she met my dad, married him and helped him in his work (also outdoors). Never really retired; died aged 70.
DFIL had an office job, DMIL gave up office job on marriage but went back to work after about 12 years (when DH went to secondary). Both had 9-5 office jobs with proper holidays and pensions. DFIL retired at 60 and is now 88. DMIL retired at 60 and is now 84.
I have been made redundant twice and am lucky to be back in work (in a job I enjoy) and will have a work pension. However I will not get a state pension until I am 67.
It's so hard to generalise but I do feel that some of the elderly who are comfortable (like my lucky in-laws) don't need all the freebies they get (free TV licence, free bus pass etc). More means testing anyone?

OldLadyKnowsNothing I think it is unfortunate for you that as the tail end of the boomers you won't get the best deal - slipping into the abyss that follows them! Those in the older half of the generation get the best deal as politicians put of dealing with the pending pension crisis 'til the last possible moment!

Thing is - when old age pensions were first brought in at 65, the average remaining life expectancy at 65 was 3 years. It was never meant to be a 30 year holiday!

Until relatively recently people only gave up work when they were too infirm to continue- the idea that you could have a long retirement in good health was confined to the wealthy. Sadly, we now seem to be returning to that idea for those of us coming after the boomers. :(

Great question. Post-war DM worked in an office, but I don't think it was so hard. People chatted at work and went to pubs at lunchtime then (imagine!). She complains about hard times but always did OK IMO, got a council home, bought it, along with another home, and got a very nice private pension when she retired. She didn't get an education, true, but she wasn't slaving or commuting for hours or terrified she was going to lose her job.

I think previous generations had it much harder though, anything pre-1930s you had shop girls on starvation wages working 10 hours a day 6 days a week. Read George Orwell Keep the Aspidistras Flying for reminder. Plus the mines, and the factories.

I think this is the latest manifestation of the "divide and rule" we've already seen with public v private sector. As long as we all blame somebody else nobody blames Cameron and co.

As others have said not all pensioners are rich but there is no reason why those who have some money should not pay their fair share along with the rest of us. Pensioners should not think "we're all in it together" does not include them no matter how much they have.

Can anyone explain to me please, why should a pensioner have a larger tax free allowance than anybody else? I just don't understand the argument for it.

I think that part of the problem is that people my age (35+ I guess) are usually children of baby boomers, the generation that have had it the easiest in history.

They had secure jobs, cheap housing, all the benefits of the welfare state, NHS etc, made huge profits on their property and were left with enough disposable income to travel and save alot for their retirement.

They genuinely dont get how hard my generation have it. I was lucky in that I bought my house just before the housing boom and there is no way I could afford it now. But they have no experience of not being able to afford a mortgage on one salary (let alone two), savings, or a pension. My mother is pissed off about her pension even though her income will be more just for her than I currently earn and she didnt pay in most of the contributions as she got a cushy deal working for the council and manage to miss all the cut offs when they changed final salary deals. She is so much better off than any of her colleagues in terms of pension, but she still moans like hell about it, because it has always come so easily.

My parents think that I just dont try hard enough to save etc. If i took them through my income and outgoings I dont think that it would make any difference either. They would tell me to get rid of my car for example, because they managed without for years. They both worked within walking distance of home whereas I cant run my business without one, and I couldnt get the type of job I am trained for without needing a car if I worked for someone else. But they see it as quite simple "Oh well, I am sure you would manage if you had to, prioritise!" When their version of prioritising is to landscape the front garden (again) rather than have a second foreign holiday that year :o

Massive XPost!