Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

What did the Boomers ever do for me?

444 replies

Nomama · 17/12/2014 10:06

In the interests if balance, you understand!

I shall start with the Ford machinists:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968

Equal Pay Act 1970

My thanks to you, Baby Boomers. Without you I couldn't have earned the same honest day's pay as the man working next to me. Hell, I couldn't even have got the job in the first place.

Now this generation needs to thoroughly break the Glass Ceiling!

OP posts:
WetAugust · 20/12/2014 15:46

I am guessing that Elephant does not work in the public sector as annual performance reviews are mandated.

Still waiting to hear what a good occupational pension is £18k? £20K?, £25k?, £30k? ..... Bearing in mind that by then most who have mortgages will have paid them off so should be living rent free.

TheChandler · 20/12/2014 15:46

Agreeing with you on the problems in the education system and failures of some teachers elephantspoo but not in the jobs market. In the private sector, there is no real job security.

I would question if there ever was. I find it hard to envisage a job for life type scenario in the private sector. I know they must have existed, because of the miner's strikes, etc. (but that was a nationalised industry). I actually find it incredulous and actually a bit pathetic that grown men (because they were mainly men) actually claim they were owed a job for life, the ability to stay in one place and not relocate for work, etc. when I as a woman have never had that luxury! And lets face it, neither did my grandparents. How many of us have grandparents that came from other parts of the UK for work, or even other countries?

elephantspoo · 20/12/2014 15:53

Many less fortunate than me don't have a choice. They have to work and work in shit jobs that pay little just to afford a mortgage or rent.

Again, a failure to understand the economics of the job market, and the fact that we live (wrongly in my opinion) in a welfare system. They choose to do as they please. We live in a country so free and abundant with opportunity that people are willing to walk half way around the world just for the chance to compete with 'someone less fortunate than you' to clean the toilets in a burger bar. There is not a single person in this country who is not already richer than half the people on this planet. And if you are going to be poor, are going to live that way, why would you choose Britain to be poor in when you have an education superior to 90% of the planet! and can choose to be poor in any country you wish. As your average educated unemployed job seeker, you could be selling crap to tourists in Bangladesh, and given the ability to speak English and having a far superior education, you would likely surpass the income of the vast majority of your competitors.

We are way too narrow minded in your focus, and it is blinding us to the opportunities to use our skills, or advantages of birth, and our freedom to do as we please.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 20/12/2014 16:02

Chandler how old are your PiL? I am 50 and I can categorically assure you that when I went to Uni, no one who was only in the top 50 or 60% category went to university. Only about 20% in an ordinary school even did A levels, and lots of them went straight into jobs like nursing. In fact my best friend went into nursing with 5 GCSEs, a profession you would need very decent A levels and a degree for nowadays.

And if you are in the top 5 to 10% now, let's face it, you are unlikely to go into teaching.

elephantspoo · 20/12/2014 16:04

I am guessing that Elephant does not work in the public sector as annual performance reviews are mandated.

Why would I limit myself?

Still waiting to hear what a good occupational pension is £18k? £20K?, £25k?, £30k? ..... Bearing in mind that by then most who have mortgages will have paid them off so should be living rent free.

Wow, what a question. A failure to understand economics me thinks. A government pension is a promise to pay an amount at an undetermined point in the future, off of the taxation of your children. It is not real money. It is what is called an unfunded liability. A liability the government creates, but does not fund until some point in he future when it hands the bill to yours and my children.

So government workers are hanging their entire future on a promise. A promise that no future government is obliged to honour. From a country that has ever increasing debts and ever decreasing productivity. A system who's returns per capita input is going negatively parabolic.

Personally, I would want real money to live on and save, not a promise. But hey, what do I know. At the very least, Google 'unfunded liabilities' and begin to research how economies operate. You may find a little Plan B would do you well.

TheChandler · 20/12/2014 16:15

Tinkly And if you are in the top 5 to 10% now, let's face it, you are unlikely to go into teaching.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Plenty of bright Arts graduates wander into teaching because it offers a vocational outlet. I have no idea how you are assessing this 5 or 10% thing. I don't even think its possible to be that precise about educational ability in percentage terms.

Chandler how old are your PiL? I am 50 and I can categorically assure you that when I went to Uni, no one who was only in the top 50 or 60% category went to university. Only about 20% in an ordinary school even did A levels, and lots of them went straight into jobs like nursing. In fact my best friend went into nursing with 5 GCSEs, a profession you would need very decent A levels and a degree for nowadays.

They are in their mid sixties. There is no way they are intellectually in the top 5 or 10% as you suggest. I'm in my forties, by the way.

Are you sure you aren't projecting your own perceived limitations on what can be achieved on others? I've read some tosh on here, about how the legal profession is only for the elite - well I am a solicitor, and my uni year was full of non-privately educated students, many of whom are working for firms now with non-privately educated senior partners. Often very posh sounding non-privately educated senior partners (maybe more interested in getting on than worrying about where they came from?). Its perfectly normal! I went to a non-private school, and there were 20 or so very bright pupils, including 3 that got so many As I wouldn't attempt to count them. They all went to Oxbridge.

You do get those people who will try to limit your ambitions, by telling you that its harder than it is. We had one such careers advisor at school, who tried to tell us some of us brighter ones not to go to university. We all laughed at her, a couple walked out, one ended up in an argument with her. No time for people like that.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 20/12/2014 16:43

Chandler do you genuinely believe that a 60 year old who was only on the top 50 or 60% academically could have gone to University ? Seriously?

And your extremely ignorant remarks about the miners' strike only emphasise your utter lack of historical knowledge of social conditions. You are looking at events that happenened in a completely different time through modern eyes. The past was another country Chandler. Though. I suspect you would have felt very at home during the Thatcher era.

And it is you who are making assumptions about my "perceived limitations". I went to University in the eighties. You had to be pretty bright to go, particularly as a working class person. There was no comparison to the vast number of kids going now. It was even more of an achievement in your PiLs' era. Can you really not see that?

GarlicDrankTheChristmasSpirit · 20/12/2014 17:05

The life you are describing bears no relation to mine or most of my friends', Chandler. We are 60. I've one or two old friends who are that cushioned, but they come from well-off families so were never the norm.

none of them ever suffered from their various mistakes, which would have led to lifelong financial detriment in the current generation

I am suffering for mine, and will continue to suffer through a deeply penurious old age. No family money to lift me up; I earned the much that I had for a while, and lost it all by underestimating the extent of my bad luck when it hit. The pensions I diligently paid into were embezzled (twice!) and disappeared in 'administration' fees. For all that saving, I get £120 a month.

Those of you with house price inflation envy (unwisely in my view, but still) shouldn't worry. Osborne's recovery plan is entirely predicated on consumer debt, which he will encourage by making sure you all borrow shedloads of money to buy homes, then borrow again on the equity. It'll be like the late '80s all over again. Enjoy yourselves.

WetAugust · 20/12/2014 17:12

Don't be silly Elephant. I don't need a lecture on pensions. You just chose to fridge the question
Anyway, I didn't rely solely on any pension promise. I made sure I banked tens of thousands as a lump sum too.
Yes, they could reduce public sector pensions - but they won't. There would be a riot.

GarlicDrankTheChristmasSpirit · 20/12/2014 17:13

Ignorance of the system and how it works is what keeps people poor.

We would disagree on the desirable responses to knowledge, elephants, but threads like this really confirm the truth of your statement.

VivaLeBeaver · 20/12/2014 17:20

Mmm, they have reduced public sector pensions already. Big time.

No more final salary scheme, increase in contributions by a third, no lump sum, pension age up from 55 to 67. Big changes I'd have said.

WetAugust · 20/12/2014 18:04

Yes, the pension promises to new members are much reduced. Existing members have some protection but are now contributing whereas before they were non-contributory. Also annual increase is linked to CPI rather than RPI.

What they dont dare co is actually cut the amount being paid to those who have drawn their 'gold-plated' occupational public sector pensions.

VivaLeBeaver · 20/12/2014 18:07

Well no, you couldn't really change someone's amount once they've already retired. What if they then couldn't pay their bills, rent, etc as that's how much they'd budgeted for in retirement.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 20/12/2014 18:17

I think they will eventually cut actual pensions though Viva. When they think they can get away with it.

I have lots of friends in the private sector who are being very much leaned on to trade their gold plated final salary pensions for dodgy money purchase options.

Andrewofgg · 20/12/2014 18:19

WetAugust Existing members have contributed throughout living memory. What you mean is that the contributions have been increased - in effect a pay cut.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 20/12/2014 18:19

As a comparison, people who were awarded DLA for life are finding their allowance reassessed and cut. I am sure many disabled people have made financial decisions assuming they would always have that money.

OneSkinnyChip · 20/12/2014 18:23

Not read the whole thread but I have to say the boomers I know did NOTHING of a political nature, are DM readers spouting conspiracy theories about immigration that would put the lizard conspiracists to shame and have all done extremely well for themselves by buying uo council houses and using them to fund their second homes abroad. Their whining sense of entitlement is really something to behold.

Teenagers are learning their racist, sleb obsessed views from someone but it's not from me or friends of my generation.

OneSkinnyChip · 20/12/2014 18:29

In fairness though most boomers I know did work hard in their youth either in the workforce or at home and didn't enjoy the holidays and social life my generation have. They just don't seem to understand that my generation is working hard too but paddling against a stronger tide.

TheChandler · 20/12/2014 18:42

Tinkly And your extremely ignorant remarks about the miners' strike only emphasise your utter lack of historical knowledge of social conditions. You are looking at events that happenened in a completely different time through modern eyes. The past was another country Chandler. Though. I suspect you would have felt very at home during the Thatcher era.

I actually wonder if you are talking about a different country. I have for instance, read on here that the world was full of single wage earning families, mainly men, while the woman didn't work, but that was ok because she had to do washings by hand.

My grandmother and great grandmother both had to go to into service when they left home, which I imagine a lot of women did. No protected jobs for life for them in nationalised industries. My great uncle went to university, it was possible. The local secondary school, in what you would call a "working class area" no doubt, had a wooden board where the former pupils who got into Oxbridge had their names put up. It wasn't empty.

I went to University in the eighties. You had to be pretty bright to go, particularly as a working class person.

Oh come off it! My university when I went, in the late eighties, was full of research assistants from perfectly ordinary backgrounds who had got in in the early 80s. Hardly the brightest 5-10%, but they still benefitted from maintenance grants.

What on earth is a "working class person" anyway? Even in the late eighties, it was pretty much the die hard liberal CND badge wearers or militant miners that were the only ones to use such ridiculous terms. Yes, most of my family were employed. I thought that sort of thinking went out with the ark.

But clearly, despite a professional career since, I must know my place, as coming from a "working class background".

MoreBeta · 20/12/2014 18:44

The boomers should definitely be forced to pay for their care in old age by selling their house. The younger generation quite simply cannot afford it.

Accumulated untaxed wealth locked up in houses owned by boomers that no longer need them simply cannot be ignored. Housing became a massive tax avoidance saving scheme for boomers and now they must spend those savings to look after themselves.

The phrase 'my house is my pension' is/was a quite commonly used phrase that defines the boomer generation. Well then hey must use that 'pension' to fund their retirement.

My parents were born just 2 years before the boomer years but have many of the characteristics and attitudes and live in a six bed farm house with 2 acres of land - they definitely do not need it and can never hope to care for that amount of property. I am already planning to move to a sheltered housing development and I am only 51!

TinklyLittleLaugh · 20/12/2014 18:47

Different times and different expectations Chip.

I was born right at the end of Boomerdom and lots of my friends were political then and remain so now. On the whole it is the younger generation who are blasé about pension and employment rights being eroded. Several of my teacher friends have complained about the apathy of their younger colleagues regarding pension changes.

I am constantly preaching to my kids about feminism and equality; at their age I was so political. My kids are a bit meh about it all, and they in turn are like Michael Foot compared to most of their friends.

GarlicDrankTheChristmasSpirit · 20/12/2014 18:48

you couldn't really change someone's amount once they've already retired. What if they then couldn't pay their bills, rent, etc as that's how much they'd budgeted for in retirement.

What? You think the kind of governance we now have gives a stuff?

maizieD · 20/12/2014 18:54

Oh come off it! My university when I went, in the late eighties, was full of research assistants from perfectly ordinary backgrounds who had got in in the early 80s. Hardly the brightest 5-10%, but they still benefitted from maintenance grants.

Why shouldn't people from 'perfectly ordinary backgrounds' (whatever they might be) be bright? Is this some sort of cr*p that says that only the natural 'elites' of the country have any brains?

That is actually what Grammar schools were all about in the days when every town had them and all you needed to do to get in was to pass the 11+; it was about giving bright children from 'ordinary backgrounds' an academic education. Do not confuse them with the 'post-comprehensives' variety which m/c parents buy their children's way into.

Have read all the way through this thread with utter horror at the unpleasantness of some of the generation we have spawned.

Andrewofgg · 20/12/2014 18:55

TheChandler As far as I am concerned the distinction, where one is needed, is between "working people" - including their children, their SAHM and SAHF spouses, retired former working people, and unemployed people who are, in the old phrase,"genuinely seeking work" - and others.

Whether you work by hand or brain, whether you get your pay weekly or monthly, whether you actually need the money you get or have independent means and still work - all that is irrelevant.

That makes our respected and beloved Prime Minister a working person and why not?

TheChandler · 20/12/2014 19:01

Andrewofgg thats what I would have said too. There are surely very few who meet, or who ever met, this superimposed rigid definition of being an ex-miner or steel worker. Even amongst them, I am sure there were plenty who did it for a time and then tried to move onto other things.

I wonder how much the baby boomers and the notion of the job for life in a nationalised industry are tied up?