What did the Boomers ever do for me?

[Nomama]

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!

Nationalisation - and, perhaps more importantly, basing decisions on communal good rather than individual profit - seems to work well enough in Scandinavia, Chandler. In fact Sweden's corporatism would probably go hideously wrong in the UK, as we now lack this drive to support one another. But it bears many ideological similarities to the Britain of the 1960s-80s.

Back!

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.

My response wasn't exclusively aimed at you. You just happened to have posted the catalyst for the response to be appended to. And good on you for having the foresight to bank some real equity. I was pointing out the risks, which are very real, and if the country physically cannot its unfunded liabilities, it only has two options, both of which result in civil unrest. The first is to default on its obligations, the one you suggest they will not do, the other is to start printing cash, and we all know where that goes. That leads to inflation in the tens of percentage points, and the devaluation of currency, and a pension, no matter how well funded, if it is paid in worthless currency is just the same as no pension at all.

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.

You can change anything by passing a law, and the voter does not get to choose what does and does not get passed into law. Just because a particular course has not been taken in the past, does not mean it will not be taken in the future. There is a lot of counting of chickens here. You own nothing unless you can touch it, and defend your right to own it. Otherwise it is merely a debt obligation.

Garlic - Collectivism cannot operate successfully within a free market economy, and without a free market economy, society cannot explained its resource base, or it's standard of living. If you take a free market economy and you add a collectivist structure to it, it must evolve into fascism or communism, it cannot evolve into anything else. We introduced a welfare state into this country, and destroyed the free market economy. We no longer have a free market. Collectivism is a transitionary state that has never been made stable or successful anywhere in the world.

Garlic - There is no evidence that unfettered capitalism harms people. You show me any situation in which unfettered capitalism has created harm, and I will show you that it has resulted in harm only through Government intervention in the free market.

fgs-

my parents were( are) marginally too old to be true baby boomers (1938 and 1940). However, like many they did the following- left school at 15 and got an apprenticeship (dad). left school at 15 and got an office junior job (mum). Lived in terrible slum conditions in London for years whilst having 3 young children. Both got second jobs and saved £1000 (in 1973) to enable them to buy a house outside London a new housing estate. Eventually moved to a bigger house(still modest). Both worked for small companies- Dad no pension, Mum worthless pension. Dad died just before retirement age. Mum still going. Mum- modest but comfortable retirement because of Dads serps contributions.

Most people did NOT have final salary pensions,nor generate huge sums just by buying a house.

Garlic - Sweden (or alternatively Norway) is usually churned out by the lazy liberal/left as an example of wonderful socialism in action. Except Sweden provides some of the best case law for transgressions of EU law in all sorts of areas. Which it has been a member of for 17 years now, which means no state aid for nationalised industries except under very exceptional circumstances. gp3r 2WE It seems to particularly specialise in lack of procedurality and lack of hearings before action. Am I allowed to speak of such things or will I be accused of needing an education? Not to mention oppression of its minority groups, such as the Sami. But heres an idea of oh so wonderful Sweden from a Southern Swedish viewpoint:

"The Swedish constitution is basically weak. One vote in majority in the Riksdag can, in principle, radically change life for all of the citizens of the state. There is very little inertia in the system. No president, no second chamber (senate) and a toothless king with virtually no political power to scrutinise the decisions taken by the Riksdag. In addition, Sweden has no constitutional high court and, according to a leading article in Sydsvenskan today (titled “Why is it so quite about the Swedish Constitution?”), the Swedish constitution is not very clear on one basic and important democratic principle – the local self-government and autonomy.

In the Swedish political life there is much party tactic talks about restoring and re-establishing (återställare) political decisions taken by the majority. The centre-right coalition giveth and the centre-left taketh away. And the other way around, depending on which side has the Riksdag majority at the time. One side may grant greater self-government to the regional and local governments and the other side, if it wins the next election, may take it away again - with a one-vote majority in the Riksdag.

With a constitution that is unclear on the principles of local and regional self-government, the Riksdag can reduce, manipulate, abuse and ignore this very important principle for any regionalist. One consequence is obvious; local and regional governments have been seen quietly beating around the bush on many issues in order not to upset the state government in fear of retribution.

Why are people in Sweden accepting these democratic shortcomings? The newspaper article may have one answer. “The politicians seem to think that the members of the electorate are not interested in how the Swedish democracy works. Or put in another way: the politicians want the constitution for itself”."

Could anyone tell me which countries have "unfettered capitalism"? The US has pretty strong antitrust laws. Russia has, well, Putin.

ElephantPoo We introduced a welfare state into this country, and destroyed the free market economy. We no longer have a free market.

Technically, thats correct. UK liberals and socialists like to explain the problems of the UK as being because its not a socialist country (like Sweden). Except of course the welfare state and the NHS make it a very socialist country indeed. Just a rather inefficient one.

If you want an example of how a protected, non-competitive industry sector works in the present day, I always think the BBC is a good example. State-protected mandate (permitted under the cultural reasons exception for state aid), rife with accusations of sex discrimination, sex scandals involving former presenters, ageism, IMHO awful programming, etc..

That's what lack of being forced to compete on the market does.

Could anyone tell me which countries have "unfettered capitalism"? The US has pretty strong antitrust laws. Russia has, well, Putin.

There aren't any.

Sweden isn't socialist. It's corporatist. I am interested in your long post about Swedish governance, thanks.

The UK is one of the least regulated capital markets in the world. That's why we are a thriving centre for money laundering and tax evasion avoidance.

Question - I'm not trying to set traps, btw, I am exhausted - If a market-based capitalist economy operates without legal constraints, what happens to its more vulnerable & less profitable members? Can you tell me why I shouldn't be looking to Central America for answers by example?

I'm not economist, but I do the basics, and that most of South America does have quite a lot of legal restraint on their economies. There are only about 3 countries in the world, beyond micro-island states, that don't have competition law regimes, for example.

The thinking is that market forces deliver best consumer welfare, so ensuring competition on the market is better for the majority of people, beyond certain reserved matters. What socialist regimes you now have are based on what governments then do with the profits, rather than how they achieve them.

Most financial markets are reasonably self regulated - thats why the EU stopped short of laying down extensive regulation of EU financial markets other than in short selling, hedging and director's remuneration in nationalised banks after the financial crisis. The UK isn't particularly noticeable - what does stand out about the UK though is that it is world leader and the City of London generates is bigger in financial terms than many of the rest of the EU countries' economies put together.

I would say that bankers, financiers, etc. must be doing something right - and I would guess that the UK would be a pretty damned poverty stricken country without its massive financial sector.

I'm actually a fan of Sweden - but its terribly homogenised. You could go to almost any town or city in Sweden and not be able to tell them apart, because its centrist planning policy has resulted in so many old buildings being torn down and replaced with dreary apartment blocks. So if you and your friends are happy living all your lives in a one or two bedroom apartment with no prospect of an actual house, probably rented, "socialist" Sweden is certainly the place to go!

I seem to have exhausted myself to the extent of leaving out words above!

Hmm. I said Central America, not South, for a reason.

I will be living the rest of my life in a rented one-bed apartment. I've just moved into it. It has no garden but is well maintained & organised, by a housing association. This makes it the first secure home I've ever had, as even the ones I 'owned' while earning well were in fact owned by my creditors, therefore dependent on my ability to keep earning.

I'm somewhat surprised by your admirable faith in free market capitalism. It's almost as though you know only the theory, having never learnt about the multiple and devastating abuses of its principles which continue to play out with horrific regularity. This is clearly not the case, though. Even if you've been lucky enough to suffer no reversals in your life or your family's, it still feels rather other-worldly.

This discussion has moved away from the point where it was relevant to the thread topic, though, and I need to switch off my aged brain for a while.

1944girl You bought in 1969? Just in time to benefit from the sexist policy of the mortgage lenders of ignoring the woman's earnings when deciding whether to lend. A few years later and you would have had no chance!

Cant believe how many posts there are, just taken me ages to rtft.

Andrewofgg, you said public sector pensions had always been contributory? I thought the classic civil service scheme (long since closed to new members) was actually free to employees, who could choose to pay 1.5% for widows and orphans benefit?
although of course that has ended for all except those already drawing it now, as everybody has been moved to the revised non-final-salary scheme now, with a sliding scale of contributions depending on how much you earn. A pp said contributions had gone up by a third, but actually for all but the lowest paid they have gone up much more, with three successive annual rises taking us to contributions up to 9% for the highest paid(£60kpa).

wetautumn you asked how much people thought a gold plated index-linked final salary pension was worth. Well, it was a maximum of 50% so it entirely depends how successful the person was while still in work. My dad was an HEO when he got medical early retirement due to depression and stress (?!?) at the age of 50. Because it was medical his pension was immediately upped to the max, so i assume, given an HEO gets around £30k, that his pension will be somewhere around £15k. My mum will have put less years in as she had about 15 years out of the civil service when we were young. But worked till 60(by choice) so probably still put in two thirds of the years, and also ended up an HEO so i guess her pension would be around £10k now. How much were you going to say, wetautumn? Do you think people assume it is higher? I think that is quite a lot. If they both live to 90 the pcsps will have paid roughly £600k to my dad and £300k to my mum. Lets call it an even million!

I think that is quite a lot tbh. They are both getting their state pension ( and bus passes and winter fuel allowance!) so their total household pension income is c. £35kpa gross or £32k net between them. Yes, i would say that is pretty good! They have no mortgage so their living costs cannot be high, yet they have nearly 3 grand a month to play with!

This makes it the first secure home I've ever had, as even the ones I 'owned' while earning well were in fact owned by my creditors, therefore dependent on my ability to keep earning.

Well put. This is something a lot of people don't understand. They are taught the rules of the game and believe they must play it. But they don't actually understand how the game works or why it is constructed in that way. And the fact that it is a construct in an important one. It means there is also a Why? which people never ask. I am glad you see it. I am perhaps a decade or so behind you on a similar route (guessing here), and I am determined my children understand, and are not simply taught the dogma and the bullshit I was taught by my parents and the school system.

I'm somewhat surprised by your admirable faith in free market capitalism.

There is not such thing as free market economy in the world today. The closes you may get to it is maybe some of the emerging markets. But the. UK is a controlled market, manipulated by the banking industry, legislated by government, and engineered to favour corporate interests. That is not a free market. But it is what most people think a free market is, because they have never seen and cannot conceive of an economy working in any other way.

It's almost as though you know only the theory, having never learnt about the multiple and devastating abuses of its principles which continue to play out with horrific regularity.

As above, abuse is corrected by the market and cannot be sustained. So if it does exist, it does so because the market is not free to choose. Therefor there is a supplementary agent (usually the government) enabling abuse in the market. Free people rarely choose to be abused over long periods of time willingly.

Good questions, Garlic.

bedraggledmumoftwo I believe the CS scheme has always been contributory; it certainly was when I joined in 1982, and included widow's and orphan's. Widower's benefit only dates from 1988 and only applies to service after that date!

The final salary scheme was not changed - but the contributions have been increased - for anyone over fifty.

1944girl - The relative values of goods, TVs, houses, etc. are all being measured here in GBP, and the major mover in the interviewing decades has been the value of the pound, not the house price or the television set. Not only has the value of human labour in the UK begun to turn back towards its historic mean, but the devaluation of the currency has gone parabolic. Measuring the past without actually understanding the units of measurement is the failure here.

Andrew, everyone on the final salary scheme is being moved to the new scheme in april. If yours is not changing it is because anyone over 50 is protected and gets to keep the old benefits.

Again, squeezing those younger!

Andrew, i just checked, the 1.5% classic contribution was specifically for widows benefit. You can get it back if unmarried when you retire. So the actual pension itself was free.