[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It says little for you that you cast that age-group as akin to villains who are gorging on their fortunate situation.

They were born when they were born; schooled in the system of the day; worked in the available jobs; bought houses as per the market of those times and managed to see a doctor same day.

To characterise them as having ridden a wave of which they were unaware at the time is disgraceful.

The following generation are the victim of poor government and wider circumstances that I have described in this debate.

As to the insulting term "baby boomer", it's only ever used in a denigratory sense and it is discriminatory.



---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:51 ----------



I thought more highly of you than to applaud what Chris has said. It saddens me that I'm wrong.

The people born after the war were completely unaware that the future would disadvantage the cohort born in the 1980s.

To characterise them as priviliged and by implication villains is grossly unfair.

I am really not sure what books you are reading but "Baby Boomer" is just used to identity a specific generation. Nothing more .. The facts do speak for themselves as Chris has reinforced and I, for one, feel that my generation, having gained more than most generations have done, have a duty to help the current one.

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I call Godwin’s law.

I’m also disappointed that someone who comments so forthrightly as you do on economic matters apparently doesn’t understand that pensioners are not being paid the money they have saved. Current pension liability is paid out of current income, whether that be tax in the case of the state pension, or contributions and investment income in the case of private pensions.

You did not save for your pension, you paid out for your parents’ and your grandparents’, and in return the benefits you would get when the time came were defined for you. Defined, as it turns out, in a way that was totally unsustainable.

The baby boom generation has, by a mixture of luck and design, contrived to have its welfare and its pension benefits defined, whereas those coming up afterwards have only their contributions defined, and lack the inflationary circumstances and the access to the housing market that might make up some of the shortfall.

Much of the financial well-being experienced by boomers was the result of the politics of their generation. Redressing the balance must be the politics of the present generation. I would dearly love to see a genuine, one-nation Tory government lance that boil, because if it doesn’t, all it will take will be a lot of young, angry people suddenly to realise they might try voting for someone else to have a go. Then you’ll properly understand what the politics of envy looks like.

Strange times but I totally agree with Chris again His last sentence is prophetic:

Redressing the balance must be the politics of the present generation. I would dearly love to see a genuine, one-nation Tory government lance that boil, because if it doesn’t, all it will take will be a lot of young, angry people suddenly to realise they might try voting for someone else to have a go. Then you’ll properly understand what the politics of envy looks like.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Benefits people born post ‘64 have, that we "baby boomers" didn’t have when we were your age.

Vastly improved access to Higher Education (50% vs <10%)
Better Healthcare - people bitch about waiting times, but the range of services, medication, and operations available would have been unimaginable in the 50s and 60s
Reasonable mortgage rates (I still shudder thinking about when my first mortgage, in the mid-80s, went up from 9% to 15%)
Access to technology and media that were Science Fiction when we were growing up
Reasonably cheap travel to countries, near and far
No 3 day weeks or rolling power cuts
Low unemployment rates (not the 10-12% peaks in the 80’s and 90s)
Not worrying about the constant likelihood of thermonuclear war

A thing about Final Salary pensions - not all companies offered these, even in the 70s and 80s; small/medium companies often didn’t offer pension schemes, usually only the large Corporates/Government/Local Government did. I have 8 pensions, 4 Final Salary, 4 Contribution based - my 4 Contribution based are from jobs in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, whilst the Final Salary ones are from the 70s (RAF, a whole £1400 pa), and the others are from the 00s and 10s, so those schemes were available to people born after the ‘baby boom’.

Not every "baby boomer" has gold-plated pensions, just like not every millennial eats crushed avocados on toast or can’t afford a mortgage.

Whilst I agree about the house prices point (pointing out that 80% don’t have second homes), remember when we shuffle off this mortal coil, our kids will inherit this...

Hugh, really?

Vastly improved access to Higher Education (50% vs <10%)

Access yes but at what cost? Lifetime of debt for most and significantly lesser prospects of getting the same vocational career we enjoyed

Better Healthcare - people bitch about waiting times, but the range of services, medication, and operations available would have been unimaginable in the 50s and 60s

Thats a given, technology & science will always improve but when most people wanted to access common services e.g. GP, Dentist, A&E, Outpatients, the quality of service (appointment waiting times) available in that period was much better from my recollection.

Also add in social care during retirement. Also add in more available social housing ...

Reasonable mortgage rates (I still shudder thinking about when my first mortgage, in the mid-80s, went up from 9% to 15%)

Massive deflection. The cost of a mortgage relative to the house price and salaries was highly favourable. You then factor in the elephant in that room and that is the actual ability to buy a flat/house in the SE in the first place.

Try and repeat what you did then now ...

Reasonably cheap travel to countries, near and far

Not sure how relevant this is to the wealth disparity of the generation in question

No 3 day weeks or rolling power cuts

See above

Low unemployment rates (not the 10-12% peaks in the 80’s and 90s)

Employed at what salary, with what prospects and job security?

Not worrying about the constant likelihood of thermonuclear war

Again not related to the point in question

You fall in the trap of 'Not all ...." Not the point here. The issue is the combined wealth disparity of this generation compared with those that followed. It is a cheap trick to deflect with the "Not every "baby boomer" has gold-plated pensions". Of course not. Not every one bought a house .. so what?