… to think that no one wants to speak up for the younger generation?

[SnowBells]

I don't know what it is. Maybe political correctness gone mad.

Pensioners who are already wealthy get winter fuel allowance, etc. Each time this kind of stuff gets mentioned on things like Question Time or something, people shout and whistle, showing complete disregard for the subject, and no real debate can happen.

I am not talking about the pensioners who aren't well off. But a huge proportion of pensioners did profit from the higher house prices - something not likely to happen for the younger generation.

Our kids have to pay to go to uni. My generation will retire much, much later. We also have to pay for inflated house prices.

And yet, there will be people who say 'but we've paid our taxes'. Well, we pay taxes and our kids will, too, but we are likely to get A LOT less back. I just feel there's a huge generational wealth divide. And I wonder why no one wants to discuss this properly? Why do people want to stop a debate before it has even had a chance to happen?

Everyone will die. Your legacy is the next generation. So why not speak up for what essentially will be your only legacy?

OP there is one point where I would disagree with you and think that modern women have it much better: maternity leave and the right to work and so be independent.

You may choose to only take 6 weeks ML (for which I am guessing you will be paid nearly full wages). My mother (a nurse) was sacked on marriage (they all were back then), I had no right AT ALL to my job back after having baby1, then some laws came in and I had the right to my job back with baby2 but only if I could fit all my ML into 3 weeks unpaid, including any time taken off before the birth. Amazingly, I went back to work both times (found a new job after baby1 having been for an interview 5 days post partum leaving baby screaming in the car for 3 hours because I couldn't afford to admit that child care was a problem - can't believe I did that and would NEVER recommend it to anyone else - I was desperate for work and luckily baby was fine) so your 6 weeks sounds like heaven and is just as it should be. Don't overlook that.

On other counts, I agree with you.

Morgause Interesting, the way you define INSURANCE. What you are talking about is a SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

You absolutely expect no money back taking a life insurance, building insurance, etc. unless you die before a certain age or something happens with your house - both things that you do NOT want to happen at all. Same thing with your car insurance. You pay and pay… but you do not expect it to pay for your car being serviced.

An insurance only kicks when the shit hits the fan. An unpredictable event, so to say. That's the reason you get 'insurance'. Retiring is not one of those things. It's fairly predictable.

This is a glass half emtpy/half full sort of thread. 30 years ago I remember being so skint for the first few years of owning a property that used to make excuses about going out because I literally didn't have enough to spare for a glass of wine and a cheap supper.

At 54 I work full time and I retrained in a professional career by starting at the bottom of the ladder without a degree all over again. Part-time at first to work around the children. The key point is without a degree. You can still do that OP. I now have professional qualifications and a masters degree and a managerial public sector type job that is fairly easy and local and I work about 8 hours a day. One thing I have always done is maximised pension contributions where possible and I am pleased to say that when I retire at 66 I'll have about 34 years of a full occupational pension. There are an awful lot of people who don't contribute to a pensino who would receive a substantional employers contribution and they are the people who will really be suffering in years to come. The state pension is £110pw at present. That is very little to live on whether someone owns their own home or not.

Of course people in their 60s/70s own property outright - they have done the hard yards of going without and paying their mortgages over 25/30 year periods, sometimes extending them a bit to help children etc..

I also have teenage children - my son is off to uni in September and dd is about to do her GCSEs. They have quite fixed ideas of what they want to do already. They also have the luxury of pursuing dreams and careers they want to follow that may require investment - they can do what they really really want to do - unlike their father and I who had no parental cushion or support to fall back on. I have every optimism for their futures.

The real bonus I think my generation had was that we were well educated if not well qualified and that is something that shines through and there is a massive difference between being well educated and well qualified. The former allows you to strike up a conversation with almost anyone, to write a reasonably structured letter, to exercise common sense, to pitch in in a crisis without saying "what's in it for me - it's not in my contract", to quickly work out a probability and the impact of not doing task a compared to task b when the chips are down.

What is sad is not the material or economic stuff but the fact that the under 45s and particularly the under 30s are no longer particularly well educated. They might have two or even three degress but that is no substitute for a good education. My children are extremely well educated and the real tragedy is that we had to pay for it; because it is no longer part and parcel of going to school. School is all about qualifications - most of them meaningless nowadays.

In the context of your figures and rent too I don't think much has changed. When I was 20 and living in a shared house in Fulham my rent was £178pcm plus bills, my salary net each month was £362. About half; the same with my mortgage a few years later. What my generation didn't have though were frequent weekend breaks abroad, expensive nights out, mobile phones, designer clothes, show homes, etc.. We cut our cloth far more carefully. My DH in the 80s was sharing a bedroom in a flat without heating and things were so tight for him he was seriously considering sacrficing his dream that he had worked towards since he was 16 because he simply could not manage to properly keep himself in the abyss before the fees came in. But that was more than 25 years ago and he kept going.

It wasn't as easy as you think it was 30 years ago and I think it's very very sad that you are so resentful of what other people have as a result of working hard and making sacrifices. It wasn't handed out on a plate then; just as it isn't now.

Finally, I work with younger people in their 30s on reasonable but not huge salaries (£35k ish). With partners they all have mortgages some helped more than others admittedly but if they can do and be glad and be happy I seriously question why others can't.

What do you mean by "well educated", Near?

Sorry - I was educated abroad for most of the time (apart from uni). Attended the equivalent of a grammar school, but also had a brief stint in a US high school. So I really don't know much about UK state secondary education, nor will I probably ever do as DH insists on private education for DCs when they get to school age (if we can afford it - we are looking at limiting number of DCs instead).

He thinks my education was more akin to the private sector... small class sizes between 8 and 22, high expectations, teachers who were willing to take a class to the school's country home (yes, my school had one!) over the weekend prior to an important exam for intensive study. We also got opportunities to go abroad to immerse ourselves in languages. Our curriculum in English at A-levels was the same as here in the UK - but tougher, as you were not allowed to make any grammatical/spelling mistakes. 15 mistakes in a 10-page document would have been the difference between an A and a D.

I can talk to anyone I want to - CEOs, politicians... whatever. I did notice that my contemporaries with straight As at uni were a lot more easily intimidated...

I think expectations have changed. Young people now seem to expect to go straight from education into a job paid well enough to afford their own home. They seem to think that's what we did 20 years ago.

But 20 years ago it was normal for young people to live in a bedsit and work for less than minimum wage. Noone I knew under 35 owned their own house or even rented a flat by themselves. We didn't have 0 hours contracts in those days, but we did have 3 hour contracts I spent years working on one , so much more job security then

Most people get better off as they get older. That is why pensioners are better off than the young now. I suspect it has always been so.

Also... Near.... good comparison to yours:

I started my career on a net pay of just around 1k (they were underpaying, but I got good training) over a decade ago. My shared flat in Fulham cost me 600pm. Sounds very similar to your ratio???

I think a huge part of this is that our parents (my parents in 50's, I'm 29) still sell us the idea, not only them current media too, that buying a house is the way to financial security. It categorically IS NOT. Mortgage/owning family home/staying in one location long term is a very modern social construct, and constructed to benefit who? Look at the financial crisis of recent years, and our generation are yet to have that lightbulb moment that says 'wait, lets do things differently to our parents'.

Well educated in my opinion equates to some of the following;

to have read some good novels as well as tat;
to being able to work out a calculation quickly in your head;
to know a little about the world even if you haven't travelled it;
to be able to read and order from a menu;
to be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence;
to appreciate different kinds of music and be aware of what is on at the local theatre;
to have an interest in the world and an openness of mind to be receptive to the views of others;
to know who is the PM and roughly who is in the Cabinet;
to be up to date with the news;
to have a grasp of life skills such as driving, cooking, reading a map, setting a budget;
acknowledging others

The list is probably endless but it shocks me that young people leave university so well qualified but are unable to hold their own in the world. For example, the interviewee with a 2:1, who sits in the interview chewing gum. They might be bright, they might be able to do the job but one couldn't sit them opposite a customer and they don't know why that is too often. The young graduate who tells you they aint got none or drafts a letter containing a phrase such as "if you was thinking of changing your mind". I recently asked an intern what she had read at university and she told me she didn't really read books .

When I left school it was not unusual for people to have perhaps two or three O'Levels but many of those people had the life skills and wits to succeed in the work place.

I still firmly believe whatever the odds you have to be in the barrel.

Wrong thread - whoops!

Ok, Near - I think I would count as "well-educated" then. And so would be my DH and SiLs. I can check off everything off that list. In fact, I did moan a little about people's lack of grammar, etc. on here (particularly the use of "of" instead of "have", and was told to go to the pedants corner.

I go to the opera a lot - have been since school as we used to get free opera tickets (I was part of the opera society). I guess they don't offer that at school here. But that means that when I do travel, I go. So have been to watch Marriage of Figaro at the Sydney Opera House, Aida and Romeo & Juliet in Verona, etc. Also watch ballet. However, this kind of cultural stuff is very expensive, and I understand not many will be able to do what I do. Neither do I expect them to.

DH loves classical music just as much Muse. He got into classical music because of his grandma. He plays the piano, and was mainly self-taught although he probably learned a little from his mum and sister. We also watch Newsnight, etc. every night... which really gets in the way of me studying for professional exams. We are not all undereducated...

I do know that compared to many in my generation I've been lucky. But that also stems from the fact that I grab every opportunity that comes my way...

I can believe that some of the older people also feel cheated but can I please remind those saying home ownership was difficult back then too that actually we have been in the same position- can't afford a life outside work, no furniture, etc - but in private rentals... At least you can retire at some point still. We can't since we'll have to pay rent all our lives.

House ownership is harder than it was. You could buy a house for 3 times your income, we have to have deposits of 3 times our income. How, when we have to rent? I'm Fed up to the back teeth of hearing people saying it's just us not knowing how to save. "Young people won't live in horrible flats", you should have seen some of those I've been in.

That said it does depend on how you define "young". Certainly my sister in 20's would turn her nose up. My experience says that youngsters nowadays get a hell of a lot of support from parents which I never had, and now expect that level. Those of us in the middle, raised to expect to be able to support ourselves but forced to pay and pay and pay again, are the truly abandoned generation.

I think one difference is that those of who are older have been through two or three recessions. We have seen it all before and have a (possibly misplaced) confidence that the wheel will turn and things will improve again.

Me and DP were pretty skint until about 1997. Three kids and big negative equity in a two bedroom house. We were 34 and thought we'd be poor forever. Then we made a lot of money in the fake boom times under Blair. And unlike the labour government we didn't fritter it away, as we remembered the hard times of our youth.

What I'm trying to say to young people is that it might not be like this forever. There may well come a time when all your hard work will pay off.

More up to date, 'staying in one location' is certainly not a modern construct, although house ownership is more so, aintnothingbutagstring. Before then, poor people were left to sink or swim at the mercy if charity - the whole point is that we don't want to go back there. And as you get older you will realise that house ownership does provide more financial security. Think how much money you pay to private landlords - unless you've had a good deal of free rent from parents of course - and what for? Nowt, not even gratitude - after 10 years they will kick you out and even nick your deposit. Our parents' generation could, after 20 years paying a mortgage, look forward to another 20 years working with neither rent nor mortgage (unless they were silly enough to remortgage their homes). Imagine what you could do with the spare cash!

I was in sight of retirement, only to be told that I cannot officially retire for years beyond the date I had planned for... doesn't make me feel any less resentful that I was sold a deal which guaranteed me retirement at 60 with a pension,

The changes to women's state pension age to equalise it with the men's was announced in 1995 - when you were presumably in your 30s. How is that "in sight of retirement", except through a very long telescope? And that's if we excuse for a minute that common sense would tell you that women weren't going to be given a preferential deal indefinitely.

I wouldn't even know when I'd be allowed to retire. The goal post is constantly shifting, so I don't actually understand how such promises were made before...

That's a rather unkind way of putting it Joven and for someone who has pulled up others over accuracy may I respectfully point out that women who are now 59 are no longer able to retire at 60; they have to keep going until about 63.5 because it was introduced on a sliding scale. In 1995 that lady would have been about 41.

I am happy to retire at 66 but at almost 54 I can assure you I get more tired and I have to pace myself a great deal more than I did at 44 or even 34 and whilst I don't have a problem with working later women who are 10 years older than me will undoubtedly and rightfully feel a bit cheated.

The other thing Joven is that women have little else that has been preferential in their lives and if they were able to retire a bit earlier than men then I don't really see the problem with that. They earn less, they bear more responsibility in the home, many are left on their own, and many are completely knackered by 60 - a time when many of them previously helped out their daughters with free childcare too.

The other side of it is that women live 4 years longer on average, so even retiring at the same age you could say women get a better deal on the state pension. BTW I am aware of the sliding scale for equalisation of pension ages, my point was that it is disingenuous to imply the change was sprung on people at the last minute, it has been known about for 20 years.

Women should be allowed and encouraged to have those extra earning years.

"Women should be allowed and encouraged to have those extra earning years"
And employers should be encouraged to take on 50 plus women who lose their jobs . The unemployed who are over 50 are much more likely to be long term unemployed compared to younger age groups.

joven
"The other side of it is that women live 4 years longer on average"

This is changing with changing smoking demographics - it is now recognised that the differing gender life expectancies is almost wholly accounted for by differing rates of smoking which are coming much more into line. Whether you smoke or not is your own choice and should not affect the age at which you are entitled to collect your pension.

Near the windmill actually a woman aged 59 (my mums age) cant get their pension until 66 she has already had her future pension statement
which conforms this, and yes she was told in 1995 that she wouldn't get her pension when she was 60 but by that time having started work at age 15 she had already been working and paying full NI for 25 years only 10 years less then is required (at the moment) to get her state pension anyway, when she does get her pension she would have been working and paying full NI for 51 years.

The other thing of note from her pension statement that for every full year SHE pays full NI she will get an extra pension which is the princely sum of £1.75 per week which is £91.00 per year since she will be paying over £1,000 per year in NI at her current salary she will indeed (contrary to popular opinion) be paying in more then she will be taking out.

I am 38 and feel incredibly privileged compared to those even 5 years younger than me. I graduated in 1997 (and 2000) I never paid tuition fees and even got some maintenance grant. I worked part time and in the holidays from age 14 so cleared my overdraft each term. When I graduated my salary went from 25k to 40k in 3 years. We bought a 3 bed flat in zone 2 for 170k with a 100% mortgage in 2002. We now have a small mortgage on a 4 bedroom house. The kids coming out of university now haven't got any chance of any of this.

Oh and didn't pay any interest on my overdraft (my only student debt)