• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Inequality between generations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,941
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I suppose there is that element of “well we had to so why can’t you?”. Despite the fact many haven’t been in the workforce fully for potentially some time!

mods note - split from this thread

And despite the fact that that generation had other things easier, e.g. being able to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached house on basically minimum wage. One minimum wage. Comfortably.

The resentment of the Reform-voting part of the Boomer generation against their own children is sometimes quite something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,488
Location
Cheshire
And despite the fact that that generation had other things easier, e.g. being able to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached house on basically minimum wage. One minimum wage. Comfortably.
And the younger generations will benefit from that, something that is usually quietly forgotten. The "boomer" generation (how I hate the new need to give generations names so as to vilify them) still had to work hard to get to the position of being able to get on the housing market and stay there, with little or no help available from their parents. Many in younger generations are set to inherit decent legacies that will get them on the housing market at much higher levels than their parents, and I fully expect that they too would want to see the housing market increase in value so they see more returns still. So don't expect any real pressure to bring house prices down.

The point is that older people are vilified by younger people for having worked hard to buy their homes, to then leave leave them to their kids as a big step up in life. Some may vote for Reform, but I don't think they do it because they hate their kids. They do so because the other parties do little to make them want to vote for them, Reform is a purely opportunistic party taking advantage of disillusioned supporters of other parties. It is perfectly feasible for those parties to get off their high horses and start listening to people, and far more preferable than waging a generational war, with old and young blaming each other for the problems of the country when it's politicians that have caused them.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,364
And the younger generations will benefit from that, something that is usually quietly forgotten. The "boomer" generation (how I hate the new need to give generations names so as to vilify them) still had to work hard to get to the position of being able to get on the housing market and stay there, with little or no help available from their parents. Many in younger generations are set to inherit decent legacies that will get them on the housing market at much higher levels than their parents, and I fully expect that they too would want to see the housing market increase in value so they see more returns still. So don't expect any real pressure to bring house prices down.

The point is that older people are vilified by younger people for having worked hard to buy their homes, to then leave leave them to their kids as a big step up in life. Some may vote for Reform, but I don't think they do it because they hate their kids. They do so because the other parties do little to make them want to vote for them, Reform is a purely opportunistic party taking advantage of disillusioned supporters of other parties. It is perfectly feasible for those parties to get off their high horses and start listening to people, and far more preferable than waging a generational war, with old and young blaming each other for the problems of the country when it's politicians that have caused them.
Many, myself included, will do well out of that inheritance. Many others won’t - and through no fault of their own. Some will have the double whammy of supporting one or both parents through needing care, watching any inheritance dwindle to nothing. Others won’t have an inheritance at all. My children face a much tougher start to adulthood than I did, as they have significant costs to bear but less good prospects. I bought my first house at 27 in outer London; they’ll be incredibly lucky to do similar - and the growth in house prices that drives my inheritance tells some of that story.

I’ve no complaints about “boomers” as such. What I do struggle with is the prickly defensiveness about universal elderly benefits (e.g. triple lock, bus passes) that are paid for by others who are doing less well than they are. The current discussion of student loans emphasises that - my kids expect to pay an additional 9% on their earnings for their whole working lives that I never incurred despite a student loan, and “boomers” also had fees and grants paid. The difference is stark.

That then feeds into politics. I share your analysis of much of the political debate. The bit I disagree with is the characterisation of it as a “generational war”, when the reaction of “haves” is to ferociously defend their own and refuse to engage with the “have nots”.
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,678
Mention of the triple lock is interesting in a Reform context. Farage has, as far as I’m aware, refused to commit to either keeping it or scrapping it, which given the profile of their electoral base says to me he thinks it’s unsustainable but knows saying so will hurt him at the ballot box
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
Mention of the triple lock is interesting in a Reform context. Farage has, as far as I’m aware, refused to commit to either keeping it or scrapping it, which given the profile of their electoral base says to me he thinks it’s unsustainable but knows saying so will hurt him at the ballot box
He will just say that immigrants prevent people getting the pension they deserve.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,941
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And the younger generations will benefit from that, something that is usually quietly forgotten.

In their 50s (most inheritances happen about then these days as people are living longer). Yet when they need that help is in their 20s, which means we need to be taxing that generation pretty hard while still alive to provide help for them when they need it. That's one reason I'm strongly in favour of IHT to be fair - pretty much all inheritances these days are just a holiday and car fund, something you have no guarantee of getting (as care home fees can eat the lot easily) and something you just don't really need.

My parents for instance inherited a fair bit from my grandparents (in their late 60s - my family has a bit of a reputation for longevity, certainly on my Dad's side), and it's just going on about 6 cruises a year. Now that's their right to do with their money, but it would really be much better if the state clawed back a load of it to fund things that will help people in their 20s grow, like free education and apprenticeships, and it'd not have in any way harmed them if it was only 4 cruises per year they could afford.

Some Boomers have provided the "bank of Mum and Dad", but others have just spent their gains themselves. And how useful the BoMaD actually is depends on the relative age between parent and child and when they became well off. Often when the child needs it most the parent isn't flush with cash, which is why it's much better if it can be done through the taxation system.

Instead we take 10%ish of the salary of 25 year olds for a degree half of them wouldn't even need if we properly funded an effective system of apprenticeships into practical careers. And I don't think old Farage is going to be looking to reduce university fees and loan repayments out of the kindness of his heart.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The point is that older people are vilified by younger people for having worked hard to buy their homes, to then leave leave them to their kids as a big step up in life. Some may vote for Reform, but I don't think they do it because they hate their kids. They do so because the other parties do little to make them want to vote for them, Reform is a purely opportunistic party taking advantage of disillusioned supporters of other parties. It is perfectly feasible for those parties to get off their high horses and start listening to people, and far more preferable than waging a generational war, with old and young blaming each other for the problems of the country when it's politicians that have caused them.

Certainly Reform is born out of a failure of other parties to discuss difficult issues, primarily negatives caused by population increase but that the whole basis of that population increase is that benefits are in effect a Ponzi scheme and can't be as they are now without it. Brexit was due to a similar unwillingness to deal with these issues.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,187
Location
LBK
And the younger generations will benefit from that, something that is usually quietly forgotten. The "boomer" generation (how I hate the new need to give generations names so as to vilify them) still had to work hard to get to the position of being able to get on the housing market and stay there, with little or no help available from their parents. Many in younger generations are set to inherit decent legacies that will get them on the housing market at much higher levels than their parents
I am 40 this year and both of my parents are still alive and very well - I may well in my 50s by the time both have passed away. If I didn't have a property already, what use is inheriting a portion of my parents' house when I'm 50?

The point is that older people are vilified by younger people for having worked hard to buy their homes, to then leave leave them to their kids as a big step up in life.
No, they aren't. Most younger people want to be independent and able to feel they have a stake in a capitalist society. They don't want to wait decades for their parents to die. They want the same opportunity their parents had - to work in a stable job, and to be able to afford a house which they don't spend a significantly larger proportion of their income on. That's gone now.

The boomer generation as a cohort is by some distance the most vilified because they enjoyed all of the benefits of the postwar consensus while hollowing out opportunity for generations beyond them. The idea "oh well I suppose you can inherit" (if you're allowed/if you're in my good books/if you aren't one of 6 kids/if the house didn't get sold to pay for my care) is not what I would want for my daughter. That's just paternalism and it's old hat.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,309
Location
Somerset
In their 50s (most inheritances happen about then these days as people are living longer). Yet when they need that help is in their 20s, which means we need to be taxing that generation pretty hard while still alive to provide help for them when they need it.
The solution there is of course to skip a generation in the inheritance - though that may spread the proceeds a bit thinner.
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,678
The solution there is of course to skip a generation in the inheritance - though that may spread the proceeds a bit thinner.

Exactly that

My parents are both in their early 80s and in good health for people of that vintage.

They have two children and five grandchildren.

Both my sister and I are comfortably off, and we've had a conversation with our parents about inheritances and we've all agreed that a sensible split sees the majority pass to the grandkids, where the need is greater. Luckily all of them are reasonably sensible and we're confident they'll use any inheritance for something worthwhile like a house deposit rather than a trip to Vegas or a lifetime supply of jammy buns.

But of course none of this is guaranteed - who knows what care mum and dad might need in the future and we can't guarantee none of the kids will go rogue - but it seems like a sensible decision
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,941
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I am 40 this year and both of my parents are still alive and very well - I may well in my 50s by the time both have passed away. If I didn't have a property already, what use is inheriting a portion of my parents' house when I'm 50?

Precisely. If it happens (and I'd rather my parents remained alive and in reasonable health for as long as possible, to be clear, even if that means it all going on care home fees) it'll be a holiday and car fund. All very nice, but it would have done nothing to get me a deposit for a house in my 20s.

No, they aren't. Most younger people want to be independent and able to feel they have a stake in a capitalist society. They don't want to wait decades for their parents to die. They want the same opportunity their parents had - to work in a stable job, and to be able to afford a house which they don't spend a significantly larger proportion of their income on. That's gone now.

Exactly. The fact that houses are now many times income rather than a couple of times is the main problem.

The boomer generation as a cohort is by some distance the most vilified because they enjoyed all of the benefits of the postwar consensus while hollowing out opportunity for generations beyond them. The idea "oh well I suppose you can inherit" (if you're allowed/if you're in my good books/if you aren't one of 6 kids/if the house didn't get sold to pay for my care) is not what I would want for my daughter. That's just paternalism and it's old hat.

Again, bingo.
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,617
Location
Gwynedd
The idea "oh well I suppose you can inherit" (if you're allowed/if you're in my good books/if you aren't one of 6 kids/if the house didn't get sold to pay for my care) is not what I would want for my daughter. That's just paternalism and it's old hat.
/if there's anything in inherit to begin with.

We have a mortgage of our own thankfully, but if we were relying on my parents' inheritance I'd be surprised if would even cover a deposit.

Most of the family members my age don't have a mortgage or a house paid off; not for not wanting, but a lot of wage stagnation and high cost of living.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,736
Location
Newport
that generation had other things easier, e.g. being able to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached house on basically minimum wage. One minimum wage. Comfortably.
You have a different recollection of history to mine. The residences of the working classes (factory, manual, semi-sklled) were predominantly council houses because home ownership was beyond their means. (My parents never owned a property.) Home ownership was the preserve of the better-paid and white collared until Thatcher got away with the UK's biggest ever gerrymandering, selling off that invaluable social housing stock at a massive discount, contributing hugely to today's private rental market and another barrier to getting on the 'housing ladder'.
AlterEgo said:
The boomer generation as a cohort is by some distance the most vilified because they enjoyed all of the benefits of the postwar consensus while hollowing out opportunity for generations beyond them.
Yes, it happened on my watch but very much against my wishes and my only kop-out is never voting Tory. In my view, that free-money era has created the unsustainable illusion of a perpetual low-tax nation which has driven savage cuts to essential services. Reform (back on topic!) will push that agenda further and those who cherish health care paid for purely from taxation or improved public transport, etc, need to wise up quickly.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,941
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You have a different recollection of history to mine. The residences of the working classes (factory, manual, semi-sklled) were predominantly council houses because home ownership was beyond their means. (My parents never owned a property.) Home ownership was the preserve of the better-paid and white collared until Thatcher got away with the UK's biggest ever gerrymandering, selling off that invaluable social housing stock at a massive discount, contributing hugely to today's private rental market and another barrier to getting on the 'housing ladder'.

I think your parents are a different generation to mine, perhaps? "Boomer" is like most of the generations quite wide, and there is a fair difference between early Xers and late Xers. My parents were big beneficiaries of Thatcher. Yes, they were (and are) middle class, my Dad was a manager at the TSB, however when they bought their first house I think he was still a cashier. And they had only one income until I was in my teens (mid 40s now) when my Mum went back to work because she was bored at home with no kids to look after.

Of course back then it was easier for the working classes too, because that Council housing was available. Much less so now, they're more likely being ripped off by private landlords. Social housing might be rented but it's almost as secure in tenure as owned, and has some advantages over owned, e.g. that if the boiler blows up it's not your problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Yes, it happened on my watch but very much against my wishes and my only kop-out is never voting Tory. In my view, that free-money era has created the unsustainable illusion of a perpetual low-tax nation which has driven savage cuts to essential services. Reform (back on topic!) will push that agenda further and those who cherish health care paid for purely from taxation or improved public transport, etc, need to wise up quickly.

Completely agree. Reform is about the interests of rich people, not of the country. And all because the other parties won't deal with some difficult debates that they have raised.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,187
Location
LBK
You have a different recollection of history to mine. The residences of the working classes (factory, manual, semi-sklled) were predominantly council houses because home ownership was beyond their means. (My parents never owned a property.) Home ownership was the preserve of the better-paid and white collared until Thatcher got away with the UK's biggest ever gerrymandering, selling off that invaluable social housing stock at a massive discount, contributing hugely to today's private rental market and another barrier to getting on the 'housing ladder'.
Even in the 1970s more households owned their own home than rented. A minority of people lived in council houses. There was a housing boom in the 1970s, which is exactly when many early boomers became able to afford to purchase their own home, as they reached their 20s and 30s.

My parents bought their first place in 1977. My dad, at 28, worked on the shop floor in a clock factory then, just before taking a job as a guard on the Underground, and my mum, 25, was a cashier in a petrol station. Yes, they "worked very hard" indeed, but I'd wager no harder than comparable people their age today are working.
 

ChrisC

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2018
Messages
2,251
Location
Nottinghamshire
Even in the 1970s more households owned their own home than rented. A minority of people lived in council houses. There was a housing boom in the 1970s, which is exactly when many early boomers became able to afford to purchase their own home, as they reached their 20s and 30s.

My parents bought their first place in 1977. My dad, at 28, worked on the shop floor in a clock factory then, just before taking a job as a guard on the Underground, and my mum, 25, was a cashier in a petrol station. Yes, they "worked very hard" indeed, but I'd wager no harder than comparable people their age today are working.
It was a very different world back in the 1960’s and 70’s when most people in working class communities lived far less materialistic lives than people do these days. They did work hard but probably not working such long hours as some have to these days, and most women after having children, if they worked at all, only worked part time for a few hours in the middle of the day when the children were in school.

When I look back now to how my parents and grandparents lived I realise just how little money they had and how difficult times were. If you were lucky enough to be able to own your own home it was usually furnished with second hand furniture handed down from parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Bathrooms and kitchens were very basic many people still didn’t have the central heating or luxuries such as fitted carpets. These days when people move into a new house they expect to be able to have everything new. I can remember the excitement when my parents were able afford to buy their first fridge! We still had to walk into the village for many years to make phone calls from the phonebox.

We were loved and well cared for but had none of the things which people today see as necessities. There were no mobile phones, computers, large televisions and home cinema and all the other electronic devices and gaming things which are part of young people’s lives today. We didn’t eat out because we couldn’t afford it and all the food we had at was very basic with lots of fresh vegetables and potatoes, certainly non of the ready meals and takeaway foods people have today. Most people went on holiday only once a year perhaps to a caravan on the Lincolnshire coast and that had meant saving money for a whole year to pay for it. Even when on holiday most of the meals were home cooked in the caravan until the last day of the holiday when we splashed out and had fish and chips and an ice cream.

When I look at old school photos of my primary school days in the 1960’s we all look as though we are from a workhouse with boys wearing homemade knitted jumpers and girls in homemade dresses which grandmothers had invariably made. There were none of the nice clothes children wear today including branded clothes and desirable sportswear. If we were lucky we were dressed in cheap basic clothes from Woolworths. Looking back at my old college photos from the 1970’s again we all looked quite poorly dressed in tatty jeans, basic t shirts and baggy jumpers. None of the designer clothes and expensive trainers which many students wear today.

I‘m not making this up. It is how it was. Today perhaps anyone living like that would be seen as being as living in poverty.When I went to college, even though my parents didn’t have much money I still didn’t get a full grant and my parents were expected to pay some money to supplement my grant. I never accepted anywhere near the full amount they were expected to pay as I knew they couldn’t afford it. At least we didn’t have have the dreadful student loans that todays youngsters are stuck with.

I know that many young people today are having a very difficult time and will probably never be able to afford their own home and so in the long run will not be as fortunate as I eventually was. It must be difficult for them to now see people like me as being wealthy pensioners.

It really annoys me when I speak to so many people of my age who are now intending to vote Reform as I don’t think that is the answer. However, at the moment I have no idea who I would vote for.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,488
Location
Cheshire
I am 40 this year and both of my parents are still alive and very well - I may well in my 50s by the time both have passed away. If I didn't have a property already, what use is inheriting a portion of my parents' house when I'm 50?


No, they aren't. Most younger people want to be independent and able to feel they have a stake in a capitalist society. They don't want to wait decades for their parents to die. They want the same opportunity their parents had - to work in a stable job, and to be able to afford a house which they don't spend a significantly larger proportion of their income on. That's gone now.

The boomer generation as a cohort is by some distance the most vilified because they enjoyed all of the benefits of the postwar consensus while hollowing out opportunity for generations beyond them. The idea "oh well I suppose you can inherit" (if you're allowed/if you're in my good books/if you aren't one of 6 kids/if the house didn't get sold to pay for my care) is not what I would want for my daughter. That's just paternalism and it's old hat.
However the same generations worked to allow a society where through buying property they gave younger generations safer, more stable places to grow up in, far more opportunities to go into higher education, an economy that for the most part has allowed for minimum wages and working hour regulations, and generally where the quality of life is overall far better. What would the UK be like if those generations had not worked hard, and saved and invested harder, but instead spent the money as soon as it came in, and instead of buying rented all their lives? Would the same conditions exist? I suspect not. They certainly didn't through the 60s, 70s and 80s. Many people did have to work really hard, I mean really hard to keep things above water, it wasn't all plain sailing. It's always worth keeping this in mind.

All most people tried to do through mine and older generations (I'm 56 this year) is what they were advised to do at the time, save and invest for the future. Have something aside in capital or property to help the next generations. They weren't to know that property prices would go crazy, especially in the South East where through poor government policies most of the high waged jobs would end up in, and eventually force prices up in an ever expanding bubble as the commuter belt grew and grew. If any people should be vilified it is successive governments on both sides of the political spectrum, who chased the dream of keeping the UK relevant globally via financial industries, but completely neglected many others that simply caused huge disparity between different parts of the country.

And it's for this reason I would dread a Farage led government. He wants the same power his hero in the White House has, he wants to be able control the country's finances in order to help him and his mates in the City. If you worry about the future for younger people now, it would quickly become a nightmare under Farage, something I'm sure most would agree with.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,488
Location
Cheshire
I quite agree, and it's why I'm very careful not to blame "boomers". They grew up in the circumstances of their time, and made decisions based on what was reasonable.

The issue is that, as a voting bloc, "the grey vote" are a strong force restraining politicians from dealing with the issues that make life harder for younger people now. They are fiercely protective of the good things they get, and frequently deploy "avocado toast" type myths to suggest that if the young just lived like monks, they'd be fine. These discussions simply don't address the issues of magnitude that make it hard to get on the housing ladder, or the costs of rental, or the importance of electronics to be able to lead a normal life.
Younger people are going to have to start engaging more with politics, and give themselves a greater voice in shaping the next few decade's direction. Of course one day, those young people are going to become "boomers" themselves, at least in the sense that they will want to protect what they've earned....
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,364
Younger people are going to have to start engaging more with politics, and give themselves a greater voice in shaping the next few decade's direction. Of course one day, those young people are going to become "boomers" themselves, at least in the sense that they will want to protect what they've earned....
Indeed. The problem, of course, is that if those younger people don't feel they've a stake in their society, they can be attracted to other parties that undermine us all. Of which, in its own way, Reform is one
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,488
Location
Cheshire
Indeed. The problem, of course, is that if those younger people don't feel they've a stake in their society, they can be attracted to other parties that undermine us all. Of which, in its own way, Reform is one
Thankfully what polling intention data exists shows that Reform aren't making too many inroads into the younger demographics, Labour & the Green Party seem to attract the most support. And whilst it is true that many young people can feel like they have no stake in society, this isn't unique to this younger generation, it's been pretty much the same through most generations. The choice to try to make a difference is with them. Far better to stand up and try to shape your future, than to simply sit down and moan that everyone else has ruined it.
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,123
Location
Selhurst
As a member of Generation Z I am able to vouch for this. Most of us see right through Reform. Bear in mind all of our conscious lives we have been hearing the same moaning about immigrants and seen the consequences of neoliberal economics and austerity over and over again.

The Green party under their new leadership offers the only beacon of hope in politics.
 

contrex

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2009
Messages
1,657
Location
St Werburghs, Bristol
As a member of Generation Z I am able to vouch for this. Most of us see right through Reform. Bear in mind all of our conscious lives we have been hearing the same moaning about immigrants and seen the consequences of neoliberal economics and austerity over and over again.

The Green party under their new leadership offers the only beacon of hope in politics.
As a 73-year-old 'Boomer' (hateful word!) I feel that GenZee may be what saves this country from fascism. Or if it comes, fight it. I think Zack Polanski is brilliant.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,022
Location
West Wiltshire
The solution there is of course to skip a generation in the inheritance - though that may spread the proceeds a bit thinner.
My parents (now passed) did that, said myself and my sister had good jobs, didn't have student debt, and now own our homes outright, so passed all the inheritance to be split between grandchildren because that generation is going to struggle to get a home and has student debt.

Sensibly put in request that could only be used towards house purchase, or professional (career) training costs until they were 25 to stop them squandering it before grandchildren had a few years of struggle so they understood its value.
In practice though people aren't going to do that unless the state does it for them.
If don't have a will the law of land is based on 1925 Estates law
1) spouse
2) children (only passes to their issue if already dead (ie to grandchildren)
3) parents
4) brothers & sisters (whole blood) both same parents (or their children if dead) ie grandchildren
5) brothers & sisters (half blood)
6) Grandparents
7) Aunts and Uncles (whole blood) or their children if deceased
8) Aunts and Uncles (half blood) or their children if deceased
9) Crown (HM Treasury)

So because we use 100+ year old rules, (from a period when many died young), if there is no will, grandchildren only inherit if they are unlucky and their parents have died before grandparents.
 

WAB

Established Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
1,288
Location
Anglia
We were loved and well cared for but had none of the things which people today see as necessities. There were no mobile phones, computers, large televisions and home cinema and all the other electronic devices and gaming things which are part of young people’s lives today. We didn’t eat out because we couldn’t afford it and all the food we had at was very basic with lots of fresh vegetables and potatoes, certainly non of the ready meals and takeaway foods people have today. Most people went on holiday only once a year perhaps to a caravan on the Lincolnshire coast and that had meant saving money for a whole year to pay for it. Even when on holiday most of the meals were home cooked in the caravan until the last day of the holiday when we splashed out and had fish and chips and an ice cream.
If you don't have a mobile phone and computer, you are cut off from modern society. And does a £300 TV once every ten years make much of a dent in a £1000/£2000 monthly mortgage payment?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,488
Location
Cheshire
It was a very different world back in the 1960’s and 70’s when most people in working class communities lived far less materialistic lives than people do these days. They did work hard but probably not working such long hours as some have to these days, and most women after having children, if they worked at all, only worked part time for a few hours in the middle of the day when the children were in school.

When I look back now to how my parents and grandparents lived I realise just how little money they had and how difficult times were. If you were lucky enough to be able to own your own home it was usually furnished with second hand furniture handed down from parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Bathrooms and kitchens were very basic many people still didn’t have the central heating or luxuries such as fitted carpets. These days when people move into a new house they expect to be able to have everything new. I can remember the excitement when my parents were able afford to buy their first fridge! We still had to walk into the village for many years to make phone calls from the phonebox.

We were loved and well cared for but had none of the things which people today see as necessities. There were no mobile phones, computers, large televisions and home cinema and all the other electronic devices and gaming things which are part of young people’s lives today. We didn’t eat out because we couldn’t afford it and all the food we had at was very basic with lots of fresh vegetables and potatoes, certainly non of the ready meals and takeaway foods people have today. Most people went on holiday only once a year perhaps to a caravan on the Lincolnshire coast and that had meant saving money for a whole year to pay for it. Even when on holiday most of the meals were home cooked in the caravan until the last day of the holiday when we splashed out and had fish and chips and an ice cream.

When I look at old school photos of my primary school days in the 1960’s we all look as though we are from a workhouse with boys wearing homemade knitted jumpers and girls in homemade dresses which grandmothers had invariably made. There were none of the nice clothes children wear today including branded clothes and desirable sportswear. If we were lucky we were dressed in cheap basic clothes from Woolworths. Looking back at my old college photos from the 1970’s again we all looked quite poorly dressed in tatty jeans, basic t shirts and baggy jumpers. None of the designer clothes and expensive trainers which many students wear today.

I‘m not making this up. It is how it was. Today perhaps anyone living like that would be seen as being as living in poverty.When I went to college, even though my parents didn’t have much money I still didn’t get a full grant and my parents were expected to pay some money to supplement my grant. I never accepted anywhere near the full amount they were expected to pay as I knew they couldn’t afford it. At least we didn’t have have the dreadful student loans that todays youngsters are stuck with.

I know that many young people today are having a very difficult time and will probably never be able to afford their own home and so in the long run will not be as fortunate as I eventually was. It must be difficult for them to now see people like me as being wealthy pensioners.

It really annoys me when I speak to so many people of my age who are now intending to vote Reform as I don’t think that is the answer. However, at the moment I have no idea who I would vote for.
Very well said, as a child of the 70s and 80s it was very similar to your experience. I do wonder how younger generations would cope if for some reason they found themselves in a situation where life was like those decades. I suspect it would be a hell of a shock to say the least.

If you don't have a mobile phone and computer, you are cut off from modern society. And does a £300 TV once every ten years make much of a dent in a £1000/£2000 monthly mortgage payment?
I'm not sure what your point is here? The internet wasn't an option in the 60s, 70s and 80s, or indeed for most of the 90s. And whilst today it is a necessity, it is also affordable in one form or another for the vast majority of society, probably equivalent to buying a newspaper everyday in the 80s. Which back then was pretty much the only way to find out about the news, sport, job availability etc etc.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,112
Location
Elginshire
I do wish people would stop trying to compare life now as it was back in the 60s and 70s; it was a world that was so different that you'd be as well sending someone back to the 1800s and asking them to cope. In fact, the experiences of someone born at the beginning of that century will likely be very different to someone who was born at the end; it was also a time of huge technological and social change.

It was a very different world back in the 1960’s and 70’s when most people in working class communities lived far less materialistic lives than people do these days.
I don't think that people of that era were less materialistic. The desires and aspirations would have been similar to those of today but the goods were very much more expensive relative to peoples' earnings.

They did work hard but probably not working such long hours as some have to these days, and most women after having children, if they worked at all, only worked part time for a few hours in the middle of the day when the children were in school.
Different times. It's not just the number of hours that people work, but the range of hours that people are expected to work across. Unless you had a job that required shift working, most jobs would have been within the 8am-6pm range. Today's consumers expect goods and services to be available 24/7 and others have to work the hours to accommodate that.

When I look back now to how my parents and grandparents lived I realise just how little money they had and how difficult times were. If you were lucky enough to be able to own your own home it was usually furnished with second hand furniture handed down from parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Bathrooms and kitchens were very basic many people still didn’t have the central heating or luxuries such as fitted carpets. These days when people move into a new house they expect to be able to have everything new. I can remember the excitement when my parents were able afford to buy their first fridge!
How can you make a judgement about peoples' expectations? I've no doubt that many people setting up home would like to have new things, but having to make do with second-hand furniture is still very much the reality for many people. When I had my first flat, I couldn't afford to buy anything new and was grateful to have friends and family who helped out with stuff they no longer needed.

We still had to walk into the village for many years to make phone calls from the phonebox.
Oh, come on! What's a phone box? I've still got one within a ten minute walk from my house, but they're few and far between and becoming increasingly rarer.

We were loved and well cared for but had none of the things which people today see as necessities. There were no mobile phones, computers, large televisions and home cinema and all the other electronic devices and gaming things which are part of young people’s lives today. We didn’t eat out because we couldn’t afford it and all the food we had at was very basic with lots of fresh vegetables and potatoes, certainly non of the ready meals and takeaway foods people have today.
Again, times have changed. Washing machines and vacuum cleaners would be seen as luxuries once but they're necessities now. Mobile phones are every bit as essential these days as it becomes progressively difficult to access services without them.

Regarding food, just because ready meals and takeaways are more widely available doesn't mean that everyone uses them, or can afford them. Sometimes people don't have time to cook a proper meal and others will lack the skills to do so. Workplaces don't have the same catering facilities these days, so people have to adapt.

When I look at old school photos of my primary school days in the 1960’s we all look as though we are from a workhouse with boys wearing homemade knitted jumpers and girls in homemade dresses which grandmothers had invariably made. There were none of the nice clothes children wear today including branded clothes and desirable sportswear. If we were lucky we were dressed in cheap basic clothes from Woolworths. Looking back at my old college photos from the 1970’s again we all looked quite poorly dressed in tatty jeans, basic t shirts and baggy jumpers. None of the designer clothes and expensive trainers which many students wear today.
That was a very different world. To begin with, clothes are much cheaper these days, mainly because we've outsourced their production to sweat shops in Asia. If clothes cost the same relative to peoples' income as they once did, we wouldn't have the same "fast fashion" mentality that we do today. We also don't have the same skills; my mum, grandmothers and aunties could all knit and my mum was a dab-hand with a sewing machine but how many of today's grandmothers have those same skills or the time to pass them on? What's the likelihood of grannie living nearby these days?

Once again, you're making a lot of assumptions. How do you know that students are wearing designer clothes and expensive trainers?

I‘m not making this up. It is how it was. Today perhaps anyone living like that would be seen as being as living in poverty.When I went to college, even though my parents didn’t have much money I still didn’t get a full grant and my parents were expected to pay some money to supplement my grant. I never accepted anywhere near the full amount they were expected to pay as I knew they couldn’t afford it. At least we didn’t have have the dreadful student loans that todays youngsters are stuck with.
At least you still received a grant, and you wouldn't have had to pay for tuition fees. Students are expected to cover fees and living expenses these days, resulting in eye-watering amounts of debt at the end of it.

I know that many young people today are having a very difficult time and will probably never be able to afford their own home and so in the long run will not be as fortunate as I eventually was. It must be difficult for them to now see people like me as being wealthy pensioners.
You clearly have some understanding that it's no so easy for young people these days, but it doesn't help matters when you come out with all the silly assumptions about people wearing designer clothes and having big tellies. You're ignoring the fact that these things are much more affordable to begin with

Very well said, as a child of the 70s and 80s it was very similar to your experience. I do wonder how younger generations would cope if for some reason they found themselves in a situation where life was like those decades. I suspect it would be a hell of a shock to say the least.
You simply cannot compare today's world with the one that existed half a century ago, especially when our entire way of life has changed so rapidly. 6-year-old me would certainly have had a hell of a shock if I'd been asked to go back to 1930. My 6-year-old grandfather in 1930 would have had a similar shock if he'd been transported back 50 years further, and so on.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,364
Regarding food, just because ready meals and takeaways are more widely available doesn't mean that everyone uses them, or can afford them. Sometimes people don't have time to cook a proper meal and others will lack the skills to do so. Workplaces don't have the same catering facilities these days, so people have to adapt.
Pulling this specific point out, many of today's youth grow up in an environment where their parents don't particularly have those culinary skills, meaning that reliance on others to make food is, for want of a better word, inherited.

That lack of skills is a function of time and capability. If you don't know how to cook from scratch, and you've not been properly introduced to it, it will seem difficult and off-putting. If you also have very little time (e.g. working long hours, doing childcare), then buying it in will seem far easier - no matter how much cheaper cooking from scratch is.

I'm in my early 50s. This is true of my generation, picked up from our parents, and it's true of my children's generation. We need to be careful not to blame people for something that is beyond their direct control
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top