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!

No bedgraggled, the pension was in lieu of wages. That is how it was set up.

You got paid less for the whole of your working life and a grateful country gave you an enhanced pension.

1. No one knew quite how long people would live for after retirement
2. No one knew quite how much they would get, compared to anyone outside the public sector (which was asked to provide similar but, on the whole, refused to until it became law).
3. That grateful country now just takes the job for granted, or despises it, and thinks you are ripping them off when you get the pension
4. The newspapers lie when they tell you what our gold plated pensions really are worth - they always quote the top percentile.

The maths of pensions are not that simple. To say they were 'free' is one of the most often spouted lies of a political era that wants you to focus on something other than them and their errors/policies.

Again, squeezing those younger!

No. You are now limiting your comparison to one individual function in society to the same function X Generations down the line and saying, 'see, this person is worse off.' Ignoring conveniently the entire development of the country and it's economy along the way. I can point to a chimney sweep who is absolutely destitute because he has no chimneys to sweep. What we need is for the government to repeal carbon emission laws, open the pits, set maximum insulation levels in housing and force people to build fires in their houses so chimney sweeps are not disadvantaged by the economic changes in our society.

If someone living off the public purse, is complaining that they aren't as rich as previous people living off the public purse, that is entirely their own choice. Their value as employees is no longer sustainable. If they cannot provide value, then pay them what they are worth and let them be, or let them get jobs where they think they can provide greater value.

It is no fault of the system that public servants rarely transfer their skills into the open market. They do not, because they find their skills have lesser value in that market, so they stay in the public sector and lobby to increase taxation of the populous to increase spending in their sectors.

To say they were 'free' is one of the most often spouted lies of a political era that wants you to focus on something other than them and their errors/policies.

Spot on, and the fact that the majority of people cannot understand how the system is run, and dare not look to find out, is testament to the effectiveness of our state education system. We teach them just enough to run the systems for us, but not enough to question or challenge the status quo.

I am limiting myself solely to what i wish to say, Elephant, no need to keep preaching. This is an exchange of views with no "right" answer. Your rather agressive debating style is getting a little wearing.

But they were also promised in lieu of wages to all other civil servants, the govt just decided to renege on the deal for anyone under 50 and not only downgrade the benefit but vastly up the contributions.

And I am a civil servant myself, and yes that is by choice need a flexible role as there is no way dh can ever do nursery pick ups or drop offs but i am also a qualified accountant and could earn much more than £60k in the city.

have you never heard the phrase "pay peanuts, get monkeys"? It is all very well and good saying their value as employees is no longer sustainable but you do realise these are the people running the country, providing public services and looking after multi-billion pound budgets of tax-payers money? Do you really think it is in the public interest to keep eating away at their remuneration, be it salary, or future pension benefits, as has been happening every year of late so that pay just keeps dropping in real terms?

I am limiting myself solely to what i wish to say, Elephant, no need to keep preaching. This is an exchange of views with no "right" answer. Your rather agressive debating style is getting a little wearing.

That is fine, but we are arguing here that civil servants are worse off because they live in a country that has greater opportunity, freer access to resources, food, education, health, and money. Purely on the basis that his father, lived in more restrictive and expensive times but had a more generous pension. I am merely pointing out the clear flaws in your argument.

Our mortgage interest rate hit 18% in the 70s meaning I couldn't consider paying into a pension scheme, hence my tiny pension. Also very low pay for nurses at the time was another factor which made buying our home very difficult.

Today minuscule interest rates, much higher pay for public sector workers in comparison to my day. And if you say young people today can't even begin to afford house buying there are plenty that do. Both DS and DD have their own homes. It's living in the very expensive south that has caused the problems. We moved north to afford a home of our own.

Do you really think it is in the public interest to keep eating away at their remuneration?

That is a completely different discussion. It is in the peoples' best interest to remove many civil servants all together. It is not possible for them to provide fair value to the people who pay their wages, because they have absolute dictatorial monopoly of their market.

Boomingmarvellous - Don't go saying things like that. Your detractors don't want to hear the truth; they will not accept facts and have no interest in economics. It is an argument founded in many cases on greed and envy. And I find it funny that the overwhelming majority of those who complain about not having gilt edged pensions and high salaries are those living off the public purse.

Booming, the average age of a first-time buyer is still a shocking 40 though, nationally. That is a big sea change.

absolute dictatorial monopoly ? You realise civil servants don't make the policy they are just the ones doing the drudge to keep the country working. So you are suggesting privatisation is the answer? We already have private alternatives to public healthcare and education, and their remuneration is clearly higher!

Poo- you're starting to sound offensive now, "did you mean to be so rude?"
So anyone who disagrees with you has "no interest in economics" and/or is "living off the public purse". Your arrogance and sweeping generalisations are breathtaking. Can you really not debate without constant, direct, unfounded criticisms of those who disagree with you? Reminds me of 6th form school debates, grow up a little.

Did you mean to be so rude?

No. Sorry.

So anyone who disagrees with you has "no interest in economics" and/or is "living off the public purse".

No. There are plenty of people posting who understand economics. And, no, what I meant was, there is a separation of those who feel aggrieved from those who do not, and predominantly that separation line seems to be coinciding with job function; public sector vs. private sector. It was an observation based on the posts on this thread and others like it currently on MN.

You realise civil servants don't make the policy they are just the ones doing the drudge to keep the country working.

Yes, I realise this. What I was saying was, you cannot operate a system that gives good value to the public, without any competition in the market.

We already have private alternatives to public healthcare and education, and their remuneration is clearly higher!

Yes, but the are unable to compete in a free market, so the vast majority of us do not get value for money. We give over 40%+ of what we earn in one tax or other, and get precious little in return compared to what we would receive otherwise.

Booming, the average age of a first-time buyer is still a shocking 40 though, nationally. That is a big sea change.

That is not simply a factor of house pricing. House prices are not simply driven by supply and demand. And mortgage availability is not the only factor governing whether or not someone is able to afford a house. I haven't checked your statement, and will accept it as fact. But the change is just that, a change. I don't see that you can attribute it to any one factor or generation, without asking why people are no longer as productive or able to flourish in the job market as they once were.

Can I take this thread back a few pages to 'what can we do about it'? First off I'd recommend everyone again looks at the Greens, and their old ideas about economic localisation. It's a little old now but their "Green Alternatives toGlobalisation" by Michael Woodin and Caroline Lucas still has some good and relevan ideas. I also see someones sent me a new book for Xmas by Klein, "This Changes Everything" which looks highly relevant.

Someone upthread there said "i would love the Greens to win but am so alone in this view that they are unelectable unless we being in PR."

This sums up the major problem in politics today. Partly because it's partially true. But even more because it isn't.

I used to say of the Lib Dems, before they turned on us, that if everyone who wanted to vote for them had done so they would have won hands down.

The trouble is that the voting system and therefore our democracy isn't functioning because we're making it not function. Everyone is voting according to what they think are 'tactical rules' - vote here to get this party out, vote there because they will never lose, don't vote at all because there's no point it won't make a difference.

We all need to get out there and vote for what we believe, for the society and country we want.

After that of course we need to get parliament functioning, stop the mps from behaving like they're a private fiefdom and make them accountable, then free up the media, then rebuild lbraries and education, education and information in politics and thinkng about what society we do want.... oh for goodness sake just give me the reins will you?

For the record I did join the greens once, was dismayed by how weak they are and how much money they always wanted and then moved abroad anyway so currently unaffiliated. I will re-join if I come back.

Coming back up to date a bit, elephant "the peoples' best interest to remove many civil servants all together. It is not possible for them to provide fair value to the people who pay their wages, because they have absolute dictatorial monopoly of their market."

You think that market solutions are at all relevant to the public sector do you? How much good have they done since Thatcher started bringing them in?

Monopoly isn't a relevant term here. The public sector always depended on individual ethics to get the job done - and here's the newsflash - it still does, more so than ever after being demoralised demotivated underpaid overworked semi -criminalised and generally kicked in the teeth for nigh on 40 years.

LightningOnlyStrikesOnce, I agree in principle that people ought to be trying to make changes and I'd vote for you.

After reading this thread though I think a lot of people want to see assets confiscated from people over a certain age 'because it isn't fairrrrr!!'. So we don't just need a better government. We need a better class of voter. :)

you cannot operate a system that gives good value to the public, without any competition in the market.

I know why that is considered to be true. Perhaps it is, but I think we've not tried hard enough.

It's not as though competition in the market ensures good value to the public either. It sometimes does, but a business is in it to make money and not to give value. If there's a way to make money without providing the service or only provide it where the most profit it then they will.

I don't have any easy answer, but I'd love to sit a bunch of people down and say "ok starting from scratch, is there a way to run a country and an economy that works?"

so if house prices aren't based on supply and demand what are they determined by exactly? They are high because of population growth, an increased number of single households, investors and low interest rates.

All this 18% interest rates trotted out....... well it's because of high interest rates that houses were do much cheaper. it was also for a relatively short period of time. And of course there were done hard times.

My mum thinks things were easier though having lived through it all. I think that's quite telling. A lot of people don't like the idea they had it relatively ok and it makes people defensive.

some hard times

Elephantspoo-are you the ghost of Margaret Thatcher?
Try reading "A Christmas Carol"

A lot of people don't like the idea they had it relatively ok and it makes people defensive.

Exactly, can't believe this dumb thread is still going.

The one that praises boomers for changing the law, when they were teenagers lol.

Boomers had it all, and screwed it all up for their children.

The young don't vote because there is no one to vote for? Despite what they think boomers weren't making the world a better place, they were voting for people that made their lives easier and to hell with who it screwes over. Just like all the boomers demanding their final sallery pensions, regardless of the costs to others. The me me me generation.

Just like all the boomers demanding their final sallery pensions, regardless of the costs to others

I think I asked before how many of you younger people are offering to give up your income to the government to be handed out to those in more need. How many of you will go into work tomorrow and ask for your pay to go down.

How about you, twoopsie?

Sounds like you are arguing that your life should be made easier. What will the next generation think of you?

tobysmum so if house prices aren't based on supply and demand what are they determined by exactly?

Pretty much by government, which limits the amount of available land zoned for building and additionally ensures that its only available in large enough parcels so that only large housebuilding companies can afford to build. They build for profit, obviously. But its not a free market, and local authorities certainly have their favoured developers.

Its not even good in terms of so-called "planning gain" - who really cares whether one big developer can build a "leisure centre" (inevitably without a swimming pool) or contribute to a new primary school (which wasn't needed before they built the new housing estate), if the necessary basic infrastructure in terms of new roads, footpaths, cycle paths, etc. isn't supplied by the public sector, no-one else is going to do it.

Meanwhile self-build is effectively stifled or priced into the arms of only the wealthy, whereas encouragement of more self build might make housing more affordable and also help people to be more practical.

Town planning is absolutely awful in the UK, its so behind the times compared to what they are doing in other countries and zoning has basically become a means of ensuring large housebuilders have a ready supply of development land.

Sounds like you are arguing that your life should be made easier. What will the next generation think of you?

I'm arguing that it should be fairer, aka the young not screwed over.

I keep asking myself whether I only understand more about the 'games' of finance & governance because of my age. But I vividly recall sitting down with swathes of weekend newspaper in my twenties, going through all the various takes on the news then discussing it with friends, colleagues and randoms down the pub. We weren't any more politically literate than average; I was an advertising salesperson not a journalist!

Listen, younger people: this is all like a strategy game conducted by politicos & businessmen, with our lives as units. Online media makes it much easier to get a grip on it - just subscribe to a variety of well-researched news feeds. You are being conned - not by us, by 'them'. Learn about it and what you can do.