This sort of thing really annoys me - the age range for the so-called baby boomers gets bigger and bigger. I apparently fall into the trap and absolutely refute that we have or had a better life, other than education - and even then many more courses were not eligible for grants and so my parents had to pay my way.
House? Yes I have a house that is worth quite a lot now and it was easier to buy but again, those maybe 10 years older bought really cheap and now have the big profits. For us, our first house was bought with a BIG mortgage based on 3 times our salaries. As I said, it is harder now but the difference isnt the way they paint it, at least not for my particular age group
And then there is pensions - again we missed out on the guaranteed final salary pensions of those a little older than us - we have rubbish pensions that have been invested in a falling stock market and will definitely have to work until we are at least 70 for any hope of a semi decent lifestyle in retirement.
Educating our own children is also taking its toll. The basic loans are nowhere near enough and we are having to contribute quite a lot to just keep our children at university - the loan doesnt even cover the accomodation. Also we do not want the children to leave uni with huge debts (look, we are being responsible!!) and so my entire salary is being used to pay rent and support my son this year. I have been saving since the children were very small and if we are lucky we may be able to reduce the loans by half, but it will take a lot out of our savings and we don't really have anything left.
Children have far higher expectations than we did -they expect help with a car, a good computer, music systems etc. They have far more material possesions than we did.
As for being profligate -maybe the governments were (nationalisation, selling council houses, etc etc) but we, the little people, had very little input into any of it.
The price comparisons are nonsense unless you include an average wage adjusted for inflation as well,(the implication is that the average wage has followed inflation exactly and I am not sure that is true) and anyway, back in 1970, if you are including everyone of over 46, quite a high proportion of so-called baby boomers were children!!!
I was 10.
Food is much cheaper, relatively, than it was then. So are clothes and entertainment, music and such.White goods as well. Cars are cheaper too - my first car was an 18 year old mini (an old banger, not a classic car) and it was £250 in 1982! Imagine what that would be now.
Perhaps some of this vitriol can be applied to those over 60, I really don't know, but it strikes me as just another way of taking no responsibility and blaming someone else for the problems in the country today
I've just visited the link and seen thisI'm of a generation, like some of these MPs, who wouldn't have had a university education but for student grants. Both my daughters are at university. I don't want to see them begin their working lives in penuary, so my wife and I manage (pay off) their loans for them (see IT Witch above), and I'm sure MPs are doing the same.Quote:
So how do you suggest we go about getting this change to happen?
For starters, nothing will change until we get people in government who are at least familiar with what we are going through. At the moment there is not one single MP who has paid tuition fees or top-up fees, they canít possibly understand what itís like. When I started thinking about this campaign six or so months ago, I thought the major problem would be not having enough people of that age to vote for, but unbelievably, there are loads and loads of young candidates standing. The problem is that our generation is pretty rubbish at going out and voting
Talking in headlines doesn't really address the issues.
Good point Witch with the average salary in 1970, I would be interested in how the inflation adjusted figures compare and how much buying power there is in each.
I don't mean to generalise and say everybody 45-60 is at fault. If you look at the older generation however they had a very rough time, economic collapse in the 20's and 30's, war in the 40's but they still managed to setup the welfare state and you must agree left the world in a better state than they inherited it.
Your generation inherited a lot of opportunities in the 60's and 70's and those in power took full advantage, had free education, low debt, cheap houses, easy profits. They do seem to forget the advantages they had, I have read many examples of people who had a free 1st class education at Oxford/Cambridge, moved to a nice part if London and stayed in a squat or very cheap rent. They had the time and space to do everything they want to do, network, follow their own career path. Eg start their own company, make lots of money, and the remove all the advantages as they grow older. For two many people money is a means of keeping score. If you constantly get more of it and buy more houses, fast cars, then you are winning. If you asked them why they do it they have no idea.
As for staying in a squat - they were prepared to do that to be able to afford to live in London - which I know was not cheap in the late 70s anyway.
Can you see today's youngsters who are used to ensuite rooms at Uni and even nicer rented properties later on, being prepared to live in a squat? Students of my generation lived in the most dreadful dives - in the house I lived in,which cost quite a lot a week, the hot water heater was condemned - but we used it anyway - and the floors moved so much that things would slide across the rooms.The windows didnt fit and there was very little heating. Ask most people of my age and they will say the same.
It isnt all our fault
Education should be free though :)
a pound from 2002 was worth 14p in 1974.
So comparing 2010 to 1970 will be worse it's more likely a pound now was worth around 10 pence in 1970. This means a pound in 1970 is ten pounds now. If you are paid £50 a day that's £5 in 1970 terms.
PS beer at 2.70 a pint that is unheard of down here ;)
You need to find Sam Smith's pubs (eg The Crown, 51 New Oxford St, Bloomsbury) where the beer is very cheap
I'd much prefer to see the prices quoted as a percentage of median income - that feels like it would be a better indicator of what most people could afford. It's also very difficult to compare prices over time because the things you buy change so much. Just as an example, the price of jeans at £54 is more than 10 times the price of jeans in somewhere like Primark. Even if you don't shop at Primark, clothing is one of many things where prices have generally dropped over the past decades - it's only the designer labels where the prices have soared.