"boomer" thread

[Maireas]

You've hidden this evening's offensive, ageist thread, stereotyping "boomers". Will this be deleted? Can we have a robust response to ageism on MN?

Thank you @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet but

If someone is unaware that Baby Boomers fought for them to have the rights they have today then perhaps replying to their post is a good way to enlighten them

would you tell black mumsnetters to say why something is racist? Or a trans person why something is transphobic? or a disabled mnetter why something is ableist? I know when I'm out and about as a 2nd waver i don't have the obligation to educate everyone (I do however acknowledge that we need to be careful not to say "educate yourselves" not least because you don't know what sources will be used and how good they are)

I kind of get where Justine is coming from. It's Mumsnet not gransnet

I attacked your generalisation, not you personally.

Telling someone to "stuff it" is not civilised debate.

If you perceive it thus I'm happy to apologise for my specific wording.

I still consider your generalisations unacceptable.

it's kind of wooly thinking

Boomers as a cohort are all rich idiots who let everything happen
on the other hand they, as a cohort are all rich idiots who should move into a shoe box so everyone can have their houses.

Whereas the avocado-toast-eating millennials are all individuals who are nonetheless hard done by.

Of course there is intergenerational inequality - people who have worked for 40 years mostly have higher earning potential and have managed to save more than someone sho is embarking on their working life. How could it be otherwise?

What is always missing in all these discussions is a class analysis. At the risk of being a boring ol' marxist and all.

Newer generations are officially poorer than their parents and people should be allowed to discuss why that is and what problems are waiting for society down the line as a consequence.

Thank you @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet . This is the crucial point. And reasonable people should be able to accept that as a cohort the Boomer generation oversaw most of the economic mismanagement which is the direct cause of the current outlook for younger adults being so dire: as a cohort, they failed in their role as custodians of the fabric and infrastructure of society which would enable future generations to have good opportunities, similar to their own. Clearly many factors are global and outwith UK control, yet better management and long-term policies on the issues I set out in my first post would have made a huge difference to where we are now, and people at the time these things should have been implemented did nothing to ensure they were implemented.

Most grans are also mums, surely?

i don’t understand your point; could you clarify?

Hi there - what one person might interpret as deliberately inflammatory another might see as a valid discussion - as we said, we look at these things in context based on a range of factors.

We have seen posts that have been pretty scathing towards Millennials and the avocado thing we used as an example of a lazy trope. Please don't read further into it than that. It's also been cited by several global, reputable orgs that generations are becoming poorer than their parents. We think it's something that understandably worries a lot of people including many MNers.

We're not coming down on one 'side' or another - we want to allow the conversation to flow and to be honest, we could all do with a bit more understanding of other perspectives sometimes.

What should those of us who belong to that generation have done differently then?

you don't age out of being a mum. I think there are plenty of people my age (late baby boomers/Gen X) who wish they could, what with caring for elderly parents AND having the boomerang offspring back at home AND often working.

It's the same as parents of compliant lovely toddlers telling parents of unruly teenagers that they should have trained them better.

can we have at least a ban on Karen then? So we can report the posts and Pouf, they're goine?

@Brefugee we do delete Karen as a PA/general misogyny.

Did you campaign to get any of the necessary policies to prevent the current structural issues that face young people being allowed to escalate to this situation: where taxes are extremely high, public services are abysmal and social mobility barely exists? Did you campaign for change to the state pension ponzi scheme back when it would have been affordable to do so, when the demographic timebomb was already foreseen and well-known? Did you campaign for energy security and food security policies, investment in infrastructure, building of new reservoirs, upgrading of water infrastructure? Did you campaign against the introduction of 9% additional tax for anybody doing higher education? Did you campaign for high taxes so that some could be invested in a fund for the pensions and healthcare and social care that a large cohort with rising life expectancies were known to be going to require?

If you did then you're not personally to blame.

Or did you just sit back and enjoy the low tax, low cost environment and the infrastructure the generations before you built that wasn't even being adequately maintained? And now believe that you are entitled to receive the £400k more in public goods and services over what you paid in (on average) while your children struggle to fund basic living costs? Do you accuse younger people who are funding and trying to fix the huge mess your generation made of being "entitled" (epic gaslighting when that happens).

Nobody is saying specific individuals are to blame. But as a cohort there is collective responsibility for the environment and infrastructure and institutions and services and economy that you leave behind for future generations. As custodians. And the absolute refusal to accept that as a generation this particular generation are taking out far, far more than they have contributed and - despite most of the problems being entirely foreseeable and indeed foreseen - have left a catastrophic mess for those younger than them, is depressing and disingenuous and the main reason why there is a lot of anger from younger people. Particularly when they then try to claim that we are the ones who are "entitled". 🙄😆

thanks

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet Conversely, for every ‘boomer’ post we also see others accusing Millennials of spending all their money on Netflix and avocados

Where do you see these posts accusing millennials of spending all their money on avocados? I have only seen this said in the same context as you use it, as a cliche said self-referentially - ie by a Millennial complaining that “boomers think we spend all our money on Netflix and avocados”. I can genuinely say I have never seen a post actually accusing someone of such a thing.

Of course, the reason I haven’t seen these posts could be because you delete them. In which case, why won’t you do the same for the ageist posts.

I’m not of the Baby Boomer generation myself BTW, but they fought for my rights and I will damn we’ll fight for theirs!

Thank you for your answer.

I have certainly actively campaigned in many of the ways you suggested. How nice to know I'm not personally to blame then.

I'm sorry @WarOnTheSlugs that you have horribly selfish parents but you are hijacking this thread.

I'm sorry that you think that, and that's not my intention.

As I've said in my posts obviously ageist comments are unacceptable, specifically attacking someone or slurring them based on their age is never ok any more than it would be for any other protected characteristic (and tbh Mumsnet is terrible also on ableism - like the horrific threads and comments about autism that are left to stand despite multiple reports).

My posts were to address the seeming bafflement as to why many younger adults think many people in the Boomer generation are tone deaf, and to highlight the economic facts which show indisputably that as a cohort they have benefitted hugely from the state and younger people are being impoverished to fund the totally foreseeable needs they would have as a larger cohort with rising life expectancy during their lives, which they failed - as a group - to ensure that they changed public systems to fund sustainably themselves over their working lives. And that they have left, for the next generation, failing public services, a crashed and unproductive economy, and extremely unfriendly business environment in terms of trade etc, fewer prospects and opportunities, failing infrastructure, and an unaffordable cost of living, so really quite a dire situation. And that the self-righteousness does not help intergenerational relations. Admitting you made some mistakes goes a long way and one thing I have noticed is that - in general - people in this cohort seem to really struggle with that. With empathy, and with being able to admit that they are wrong.

Of course these are generalisations. But there is no other way to do such economic and social analysis and these are important issues to discuss. Supressing discussion on it has made the issues worse already.

That's entirely different however, to insulting individual people which is of course unacceptable, or using sexist and ageist insults like "Karen". I call that out every time I see of here it. But likewise when people discuss economic and social trends and generational attitutes it obviously is not a comment on specific individuals or implying that every person of that generation is the same.

Of course there is intergenerational inequality - people who have worked for 40 years mostly have higher earning potential and have managed to save more than someone sho is embarking on their working life. How could it be otherwise?

This is not what intergenerational inequality means.

It means what the life chances/ opportunities will be for the next generation when compared at the same age as those the generation before/ afterwards. And across their lifetime as a whole. As I said upthread, Boomers in the UK on average will receive £400k more in state services/ benefits etc than they paid in tax. Millenials will pay in £300k more than they receive back. That is generational inequality.

I have to say I agree with the @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet post.

There are a few people who seem to be denying that us younger generations don’t get the flack on here from the older generations, but we do. There have been 2 threads on here recently just about ‘what is wrong’ with the younger generations for not teaching small children to stand up on public transport for adults, how we don’t parent our kids properly or teach them to ‘show respect’ to adults etc.

I agree offensive terms should be deleted but we are all in different generations with different views and experiences, so it’s natural that these are debated and we can educate each other’s generations.

As an aside on Karen, I'm on longwinded record on here with my opinions on that ghastly trope, and fwiw it's my name too.

I don't want it to be 'banned' though or branded as hate speech. I think that short of vile or degrading terms, everything should be up for debate.

'you're acting like a Karen' may be delete worthy, as a personal attack. But conversation around it is fair play and should be open.

The ageism is out of control on MN.

I reported the winter fuel allowance thread which was so clearly goady, as evidenced by the fact that the OP never returned to it.

MN didn't want to know. Said it didn't break talk guidelines.

Indeed. And over the years I have seen many, many posts talking about how young people waste all their money on holidays and cars and coffees etc, as though if they just stopped doing so they'd magically be able to buy the family homes that in many areas now cost £2m+, when their parents could buy these for 3 x the annual salary of just one working parent (so no childcare costs) when working in very average jobs, with far better working conditions than now.

The road where I live is a great example of this. Lovely detached houses, in a moderately affluent area. Approximately 50% are owned by couples with children in their late 30s/ early 40s both working full time in demanding professional roles (senior people in accountancy, doctors, lawyers, global marketing manager for a large firm, HR director...) where they both earn in the top 10% of the UK demographics, based on their job roles and companies (we don't discuss salaries but I know them all well and what they do so not hard to guess ballpark figures). The other 50% are owned by couples who would be in the Boomer generation, and all had skilled but far more average jobs: teacher, salesmen, mechanic etc. Those older couples have made a fortune on their houses, retired early, and live a life of leisure with multiple holidays per year.

The older couples who live in the houses would never live here if they had the same professions but were now the ages they were when they bought these homes, 30-40 years ago. The younger people who are gradually buying them as the older ones downsize, if they had had the same roles they have 30-40 year ago, would have been able to afford houses twice the size and have multiple holidays per year. And look forward to huge final salary pensions. Instead, they juggle two parents working, crazy childcare, drive very old cars and have few holidays, mostly camping or budget stuff. And they are the lucky ones with "well paid" jobs, compared to their cohort of Millenials.

That is intergenerational inequality.

No. That's generalisation.
Not all older people are rich, not all younger people are feckless.

@user76541055773 - excellent points.
Also, thank you!