Ageism on Mumsnet (and in society)

[SusanandMidge]

There's a discussion going on at the moment as to whether old people should be made move out of their family homes to free them up for younger couples (which thankfully no one on that particular thread is endorsing). However it's a topic that has come up a number of times on MN with many posters bitterly begrudging the fact that old people are 'hogging' family sized homes, or that their parents' house is now worth ten times what they paid for it in 1972.

I have also seen posters complaining about elderly people using the supermarket at weekends or being in the post office at lunchtime, because they should leave these busy times to working people; questioning why their teenagers should offer seats to elderly people who travel for free; and in many ways belittling and being unpleasant about the older generation.

I know all generations get their stereotyping but some of the ageism is really unpleasant. It's a minority of posters but their begrudging, bitter and hostile attitude towards the elderly can be really depressing to read.

Fortunately it’s not something we have to worry too much about because there are barely any council houses left.

You mean bought * not brought.

What is the definition of 'old' in your opinion...

I was musing on the fact that child poverty levels were higher then than they are now, and what that might suggest about the wealth -or lack of - of that generation of parents in relation to the current generation of parents.

Sorry - I thought I had quoted this post above, but hadn't.

It was at 31% in 2020 so I don't think you can link this to parent cohort.

Throughout the last 25 years, children have consistently had the highest poverty rates. Twenty-five years ago, a third of children lived in poverty. This fell to 28% by 2004/05 and reached its lowest level of 27% between 2010/11 and 2013/14. After this period, child poverty rose, reaching 31% in 2019/20 before falling back to 27% in 2020/21.

Yep. Apparently many people on Mumsnet assume they’ll never be old 🤔

@nalabae

That is an interesting point of view, at what age do you think the elderly should be evicted from their council houses?

Every ageist post you make on this thread demonstrates your ageism is towards the old.

Havne't heard a peep out of anyone about the role Airbnb and simliar properties have in causing housing shortages and higher rents.

There does seem to be a real fear of looking old. Loads of posters who worry that at 30 they ought to be having tweakments because they're showing their age.

I am surrounded by blocks of new flats. None of them are affordable because of greedy builders, corrupt planning, foreign investers and money laundering.
I am in my late 60s, worked in the NHS, cared for elderly parents/ PIL.
Never voted tory in my life.
The ageism on MN is depressing.

every time I return to London I am shocked by the blank-faced flats staring at me in new developments. They're just places to hoard money at a better rate than the bank. It's shocking.
Where I live now it's second homes. Not all owned by old p[eople; very many are passed through the generations in the same families.
Meanwhile the social media posts from young families saying they are being evicted or need somewhere to live in the next few weeks are heartbreaking.
We should feel rightful rage about this. But it's nothing to do with age. It's a corrupt and skewed system and we ought to focus our ire at that

How old is "old" and where would you like them to go?

@lilacsinbloom

What have I said that it ageist? Genuinely, I don't believe I have said anything ageist here.

There's tonnes of sexism on MN that gets tolerated on MN. I'd rather MNHQ tackled the sexism first. I'm in a group of houses of middle to old age people in over-sized houses; we should all move. We all had large families but no longer, it's not right we all have 4-5 bed homes, most for 1-2 people. Our household has plans to move when youngest finishes at local school (we have only kid now under 16yo).

... Yours of Long Tooth.

I'm in my 50s and work in public sector. I'm still employed on a rolling fixed term contract despite being there for over 3 years. The head of my department has said to my face that he is reserving the permanent contracts for people in their 30s or younger as they are the ones he intends to nurture for the top jobs.

Those 30 year olds who get the permanent contracts then leave after a year in pursuit of more money in the private sector. A lot of people my age would likely stay in the organisation until retirement giving 10 or more years to the organisation.

I can't get a mortgage because I am on a fixed term contract. So I will have to look elsewhere to hopefully get a permanent contract. I will then leave the place I would have stayed in for over 10 years if I had been offered the opportunity, taking all my experience and knowledge of the organisation with me. Seems a ridiculous situation for all concerned.

This is despite my line managers telling me what a good job I am doing and they really want me to stay though not enough to offer me a permanent contract.

When I tell my DD this she scoffs and says ageism isn't real and other groups have it worse. But I am still being forced out of the labour market and prevented from getting a mortgage and no one sees that as a problem. Would that be true if I was being discriminated against because of any other protected characteristic?

@WifeOfTiresias

I'm sorry to hear that and it doesn't surprise me at all.

What I've observed at work (as a 40 year old) is that people aged 50+ are either in the best paid, most secure positions, or in the worst paid, least secure ones.

A round of redundancies happened in my previous company that saw 8 women being made redundant- 4 were aged over 55 and 4 had children aged under 7. It was appalling.

Getting to age 50/55 with no secure job or career is a risky place to be as many employers will not invest or promote people at this age unless they are already in established careers. This is a recognised issue within government and one that they have done very little to deal with.

@wutheringkites

Yes entirely agree. The over 50s in high positions have, without exception, been with the organisation for well over 20 years so gained permanent posts in their early 30s or earlier. They were then included in the promotion pathway to get where they are now. Those joining in their 50s like me only get in via fixed term contracts and always get passed over in favour of younger candidates when the permanent posts come up.

When we had a recent employee forum I submitted a question about this and why they were excluding those 60s and up from the permanent roles. The questions getting the highest number of votes from other staff are supposed to be selected to be addressed. My question got the highest number of votes by a long way but was ignored as "not enough time". They then published a written response a couple of weeks later just referring to long service awards, which obviously only helps those who joined in their thirties. So they just ignored the issue.

It's so depressing as I can't see any prospect of this improving as no one even acknowledges it is a problem.

I am professionally qualified with years of experience and have never had any problem getting the job I wanted in the past. Then I hit my fifties and everything changed. Now it is looking doubtful that I will be able to stay employed until state retirement age, which will devastate me financially.

But the younger women continue to abuse us and call us old hags, thinking this will never happen to them. It gives me no pleasure to know they are wrong.

Sorry you are wrong to the poster who said I hate kids, wrong I don't hate kids, I hate their parents for allowing or not caring what their kids get up to. This 'I can hardly keep them in the house' when they are up to no good I see on social media tells me their parents don't give a damn, one even bragged how much she could screw off her ex in child support and not let the father see the kid. So I hate uncaring selfish parents, not kids fault but it's a murky road that it will be a repeated cycle.

As for the old people shouldnt live in council houses comment, where do you suggest them go? At what age do you want them to pack their things up and head to a care home and if no places out on the streets or would you prefer some morbid mass euthensia programe just so someone else with kids can have a room to themselves.
So what was your thoughts, don't start then leave please enlighten us.

@Zippeedidodah you are being ridiculous. Absolutely nobody is suggesting a mass euthanasia program"
But it is true that someone living alone has no need for a large house. The truth of the matter is that if they are elderly then they are less likely than someone younger to have another person join them. Obviously no one wants to see an elderly person turfed out on the streets but there should be tax incentives to encourage them to downsize and tax penalties if they don't.
You may not care about young families having nowhere to live, or living 4 to a 1 bed flat with no security of tenancy but I do believe that you are in the minority. Mumsnet IMO is not reflective of RL because I think the majority of Mumsnet users are older hence "agism" is called out whenever this sort of opinion is made.
The fact is that even the older people who "paid in all their lives" will still have paid a large amount less than those who are currently paying. Everyone (hopefully) knows that taxes and NI do not pay for your pension, but the ones currently claiming. "Boomers" were a HUGE cohort whose taxes had to pay for a much smaller group of elderly people. Now we have a huge group of older people being supported by a much smaller population of working people. And youngsters today are basically paying for the pensions of the older folk even though it is increasingly unlikely they will receive the same. If they do they will retire later, and life expectancy is dropping. They also will be far less likely to actually own a house outright since the income to house cost ratio is now around 10 times and they are very unlikely to be in secure council rental properties either, since they've been sold off. So where I see "agism" is actually when older people make comments about how they never had a TV or never went abroad as though young people brought all this on themselves. They did not.
And fwiw I am not young. I am early forties so I can see both sides and belong to neither.
I personally see a lot more "entitlement" though from the older generation than the younger ones. As a generation (not individuals obviously) I would say the older lot are the ones who are take take take. And then angry with the younger lot for not supporting that happily.

Mumsnet IMO is not reflective of RL because I think the majority of Mumsnet users are older hence "agism" is called out whenever this sort of opinion is made.

Yep, this. I hear every single age group maligned on here but only ever see threads complaining about ageism against older people.

@wutheringkites "Yep, this. I hear every single age group maligned on here but only ever see threads complaining about ageism against older people."

Nothing stopping you starting a thread about reverse ageism. It's certainly something I've called out a couple of times.

Why am I being ridiculous? Why shouldn't elderly people who are still functioning normal lives and have capacity be put out their homes because a big family want to move in? I'm in my early 40s and I think it's ridiculous anyone would even think that.

Post war the boomers were a big demographic compared with the old and they could afford to be generous. Now our population is too heavy and that doesn’t work anymore.

Pensions have changed but only for those now working. I’m in a well paid job. My mother was shocked to find that my net salary is only a little more than her net pension.

Building more houses would go a long way. Cut tax and regs to enable more house building. Cut the tradition of age based concessionary rates etc.

”top heavy”