to ask if you're pissed off with the Baby Boomers?

[DamFineBeaver]

Because people who are currently young-ish adults (MN's main demographic?), and younger, will be paying for the lavish lifestyle they've enjoyed?
The money borrowed for their nice big pensions will be paid back by us and our children.

Does this mean they shouldn't spend so much time in Tenerife?

Useless envy yet again. Cue endless "my parents did, or didn't do this or that" stories. Or worse still..statistics. Tedious. As far as Im aware, begrudging others for what they have or staring into the past hasn't amounted to a good lifeplan for anyone. Go and moan at the government

yawns & exits

I could tell you about my "starter home" ie all I could afford on a very low salary in a professional job, with interest rates at 15%. No internal heating, no internal loo, completely unmodernised. Not the sort of thing that younger people today would call a 'starter home.'

I cold tell you about the difference in expectations of professional salaries then and now. And so on.

I could tell you about my experience teaching the generations after the baby-boomers, and their selfish high expectations, extended infantilised youth, and lack of resilience. And so on.

For every example you give about how tough things are today, I could give you a counter-example. And my parents could give me a counter-example again, in terms of the 1950s

And I'm sure my grandparents could (if they were still alive) give further examples of how much worse/difficult it was for them, than for my parents.

And so on.

There IS a debate about the distribution of resources/wealth etc, but it's not a "baby boomer" versus the next generation.

To get sucked into that debate is to fall for exactly the neo-liberal mindset that has got us all into this mess. And the problem is, the generations after the baby-boomers (whoever they are -- everyone in her 60s?) have no idea of other ways to think structurally about our society and its mechanisms than in an individualistic, neo-liberal way. Happy to take the advantages & benefits of that, but not the downside?

Perhaps then, think about the overall structure and people's relationship to power, rather than a silly "I hate the baby boomers" The people who are putting prices up on houses are ALL generations. There are 30-somethings who are earning 3 times what I earn (as a 50-something academic doing a productive job) as management consultants, bankers, etc etc. They own houses & cars far beyond anything I've ever owned. And my taxes have paid for their education.

So the OP sets up the debate in a pointless silly way. It's a pointless silly debate. And unproductive of useful ways to analyse the current situation, and then with that analysis, to DO something about it.

It does make me laugh when people say "Well, protest! Take to the streets. We would riot if we were not happy".

All well and good if it is protest by letter or email.

Taking to the streets? You would run a risk of a Police caution which I believe lasts 99-years now.

Or, negative social media coverage.

Not very helpful for a persons employment or seeking employment is it?

We live in an age with a permanant footprint.

No more "ah, hubris of youth"

those who sign petitions against new housing on the field should think carefully before they cast stones at bankers.

Yes, as actively setting out to swindle and make millions is exactly the same as wanting to protect your environment.

The motivations are not the same...nor are the repercussions, but hey! Don't let that stop the ridiculous back and forth insult, statistic twisting, hysteria.

Why is it so very hard to believe that the hardships faced by today's generation are no worse/less than those faced by previous generations? They are simply very different.

All this hissy fit, BB blaming fuckwittery is just meeja hype. Please stop and think... why is hating a whole generation a sensible thing?

What on Earth is there that could homogenise hundreds of thousands of people into nasty, money grabbing, filthy rich bastards?

Ah, that would be the same phenomenon that ensures that everyone under the age of 40 is politically stunted, asset hungry, parent hating. gadget dependent, poverty stricken pillocks!

This thread, like the many others here, is sheer lunacy, Hysteria whipped up by newspapers who love the frothing at the mouth comments, all those sad faces, all those nasty people to stereotype and blame.

And whoever you may be, at some time or other, during any given week, that nasty person will be YOU!

I am peed off with anyone who is operating on the basis that their comfort and wellbeing will be secured by the misery of others, be it the poor of the present or the children of future generations. That includes a slice of the boomers, but by no means all of them (my parents are boomers and they live one of the most austere and environmentally responsible lifestyles I have ever seen). It also includes people of a Mumsnet demographic who are driving Landrovers around cities for no reason, living in larger houses than they need, practising a selfish individualism and and voting in ways that preserve inequality rather than favouring redistribution of wealth.

I'm loving the deliberate spelling mistakes Margaret, inserted with greater tenacity since they have been ignored so far, so that you can revel when someone calls you out on them.

One of the other claims of the entitled baby boomer type is that they worked in the public sector and so are entitled to a final salary pension as some sort of compensation for not getting the sort of miraculously high wage they would have otherwise done. Now, I don't know any world where slightly incompetent, unambitious functionaries are paid more than 50k per year. In my profession, we not only have to have at least 2:1s (and always have done), but we have always needed to bring in business, make profits for the firm, work extra long hours when needed for no overtime and are subjected to continuing scrutiny and workplace review. We have to time record every minute of our day (something my parents had never heard of), and then all the information is collated to see if we have been slacking off or unprofitable, and if we are, we might be lucky enough to be given a warning or we might just be told to go. Theres just no place for coasters in this part of the private sector. Despite this, for a several periods, people have left the profession to work in the public sector because the salaries have actually been higher or on a par.

There is no way that the sheer number of ineffective middle managers that exist in the public sector on 80k per year plus salaries could or would be accommodated in the private sector. They just aren't good enough. I'm not saying the private sector doesn't have its share of the ineffective, but the sheer numbers in the public sector just couldn't be accommodated - there just aren't enough easy, highly paid jobs to go around. This notion that somehow some public sector workers are doing a great service to the nation by taking less pay just isn't true (except maybe in the case of nurses).

It seems to be one of these fantasies trolled out by baby boomers, similar to the "we worked hard for what we have" line, and "the 70/s/high interests rates were exceptionally hard" line.

Margaret, I am an accountant, and I work in the public sector(joined too late for final salary scheme, sadly). And the details of the local government pension scheme is in the public domain. That is how I am an expert.

Pre 2008 the local government final salary scheme accrued at 1/80th per year. You said that he worked for 30 years. That is 3/8 NOT 2/3. You don't need an accounting qualification to tell you that. So something doesn't add up. Either he worked much longer (2/3 of 80 is 53 years?!?) OR he earned much more, OR he paid some massive additional contributions. AND he would have got a £93k lump sum when he retired.

No-one is questioning the amount you receive, just your misguided belief that you are hard done-by, and the sums of how you came to receive that very generous spouse's pension.

And you didn't answer my question about how big a pile of money you are sitting on while whinging about the cost of living as a proportion of your unearned income. Unless you did spunk that golden farewell on a cruise or a house in Spain?

Nomama What on Earth is there that could homogenise hundreds of thousands of people into nasty, money grabbing, filthy rich bastards?

I don't mean to be rude, but are you not perhaps very bright?

Easily measurable norms - final salary pensions (no longer available to most), lower house prices, free university education for the brightest - all very concrete, authenticated evidence. Are you trying to say that these differences don't exist, because you fall for the corny old line of the disappointed under-achiever, its all the bankers' fault?

Well your only right about one part of it. He did get a lump sum and although it sounds like a lot it really wasn't. All it bought was two new modest cars, a new kitchen and a few holidays then it was gone. Not exactly the lottery win people suggest it is.

Not very bright? Of course you mean to be rude!

Ad the rest of your post suggests you have a very entrenched view of what has gone before.

It may be very "concrete, authenticated evidence", however it is not the whole truth and so leaves you with, basically, a lie! And, had you read what I actually typed, you would know that I said that there were differences. In fact that was probably central to my post.

Where did I say it was all the banker's fault?

I do note that you completely ignored the essence of my post in order to be insulting. Which does go some way to 'prove' that I may have a point.

Well said upthechimney.

This a pointless, silly debate, started, I think, to be deliberately provocative. IMO the real problem in this country, which affects housing, wages and so many other things, is extreme wealth inequality.

Rofl that £93k lump sum and a £31k a year pension isn't the lottery win people think it is

As the lucky owner of a defined benefit pension at least I have the grace to realise my good fortune even though it is less good than those that came before

So which was I, did he work longer, earn more or make massive extra contributions?

I am not annoyed at all Babyboomers.

I am annoyed at those who don't see the younger generation is worse off. Many, many Babyboomers I met wouldn't get a chance in hell getting a job that pays the mortgage for the kind f house they own now.

And yet, they think it was due to "hard work".

There is even a course

Inequalities in Personal Finance: the Baby Boom Legacy

Bloody Nora! The Open University too!

I'm not surprised at that course - OU students these days are usually either poor younger people who couldn't afford to go to university or rich baby boomers.

Theres plenty of academic articles about it. A quick google reveals even international articles on the subject:

www.economist.com/news/briefing/21601248-generation-old-people-about-change-global-economy-they-will-not-all-do-so

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10888-011-9168-1

I'm sure it is something economists debate all the time. We debate other trends in history, so I don't see why the baby boomers and their very measurable effect on society should be any different.

The course is free Margaret.

Gosh some people get what they deserve! don't they

I'm sure that there are entitled baby boomer types. However, the baby boomers I know well spend all their money on their grandchildren and will pass on any accumulated wealth to their children.

I do know of 50-70 year olds who are forever popping off on holiday, however, I think they are just older versions of people in their 30s and 40s who can afford 3 holidays a year. These people also spend lots of money on their children and grandchildren.

You can argue all day about one generation being better off than another, and clearly this thread shows that some 'baby boomers' are a little out of touch with how the other half lives. However I think the bigger problem is the far larger number of people who don't get any help from anybody because nobody in their family has ever had much money.