Off Topic Politics Thread

[Schad]

You are doing straight lines now. "Wage growth was higher" ignores that product and goods were higher cost as well in proportion. Property was rising yes but basic foods were more expensive. There was not so many "home brands" back then, It was all branded, normal folks had limited grocery choices because the foods we eat today (and consider normal) were more expensive.

It is stupid when the RPI and BBC types go and check a shopping basket and they have all branded items in their basket. We are constantly told that food is more expensive now than it was back then but it isn't. We are buying a much wider variety of foods that were out of people's price range back then. What they do when they compare these food lists is compare a middle class shopping trip. I buy cheap toilet paper not Andrex. 6 rolls for 79p. I buy homebrand baked beans for 23p, homebrand ketchup of 30p. Get that in the shipping basket and tell me groceries have gone up in price (Accounting for inflation.)

Paracetamol and Aspirin is less than 30p a pack.

You can't just draw a straight line of higher wage growth, higher house prices and degree costs most people will never pay back = having a harder time. You also can't take the narrative of a middle class grocery shop being representative of how it costs more to eat. I don;t eat the "crap" my Mum used to put on the table. I did then because it was the food. I like to eat nicer foods in the main than when I was a kid in the eighties but I am not trying to equate the food I eat as costing more than the food that I used to eat to talk about a narrative. My groceries probably do cost more adjusted for inflation than back then but I am not eating liver, heart, the cheapest cuts, peas every night as veg and some of the other awful food that was necessary to eat back then.

But these are minimal savings in the grand scheme. When 40-50% of your wages (if you're working a pretty good job, for that matter) are going toward housing and servicing debt, saving 10p on Aspirin will not actually get you ahead.

I already said I agree on housing. I am talking about the young's perception that previous generations had it so much better. They have much more expectation of what their standard of living should be and seem oblivious to the fact that previous generations have it better now because they toughed it out working their way there.

Yes, yes, every previous generation pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and younger ones simply aren't toughing it out. This, as it in turns out, is what every generation has thought of the generations that came thereafter.

I am not saying it is expensive coffee. That is a representative unit of a much bigger story. It is one component of hundreds that the current generation see as normal. As part of normal life and not an extra they should really think about giving up. "Every little helps" says Tesco. "It all adds up" My Mum used to say.

Add all that stuff up together. Very easy for a "naysayer"like you to simplify it down to one element (coffee) to suggest an argument is flawed when you know full well that people today have an abundance of things they spend money on that they consider as normal where previous generations would see them as "extras."

In an age where the young "have it so hard" how come all the coffee shops are full mostly of young people? The sandwich bars? Do you not think if they added up all their "little" spends that they might be surprised just how much they could save?

Because, when you're financially strapped, hanging out with a friend over a £2 coffee or £7 meal is the sort of luxury you can actually afford? Unless anyone doing more than wearing sackcloth and sleeping in a cardboard box represents unnecessary extravagance in your opinion.

As for the government shifting the debt? Have you not read what I have said for the whole of this thread? I have been saying they do this. What I would say to you though is that government debt is also the debt of the very same people. The government debt IS the people's debt.

What has that got to do with people spending money on coffees etc? Are they paying for them on credit cards? Do you not agree they should think twice about their coffees? And please remember that I am not just talking about a coffee a day. I am talking about the £40 a month contract mobile, the £10 a month netflix, the gym membership, the finance on the 2 year old car they decided on instead of the 5 year old one. Should they not think twice? After all they are the ones moaning about debt.

I've been there done that. Paid off £15k of debt in full while on benefits with a young family. No credit anymore. I/we choose what to buy in terms of extras. We don't buy "nearly new" cars anymore, we buy cars when they are 5+ years old and pay cash not credit.

It has nothing to do with Netflix or coffees, because these are utterly trivial expenses. One is not going to get themselves out from under a six-figure mortgage by forgoing coffee and Netflix and name-brand beans. Indeed, the fact that younger people have turned to Netflix and other cheap streaming services for their entertainment rather than expensive satellite packages and large TVs is often breathlessly cited as bringing about the death of the television industry, so it might be a particularly inapt choice.

 

[Archers Road]

I was born in suburban London in 1961. I was not born into money, my parents were hard working but far from wealthy. They had both known hardship and war in their own childhoods. Our house was cold most of the time (no central heating, no double glazing), the hired tellies we had were black and white and seldom worked well for long. We didn't have a car for a long time, or many materiel possessions, no one did. Oh, and we never had a holiday abroad until I was grown up.

All that aside, I doubt there has ever been a better time or place in the whole of human history in which to be born. It really angers me when others of my generation fail to acknowledge exactly how privileged we have been, and that applies to pretty much all of us. I left school at a time of full employment, when wages were good even for unskilled workers. There were unprecedented opportunities for people from ordinary backgrounds to get on in life and improve their station, given a fair amount of hard work and good fortune.

Buying a house was a struggle, but rents were low and council houses were readily available for anyone with, or planning to start, a family. The NHS was always there to look after us if we got sick, and we expected that to continue forever - even most right wing Tories were committed to that. Many of us now have decent company pensions to fall back on in our old age.

My generation did not have it hard, and I take issue with any one of my contempories who claim we did. Had it tough? My arse, we had it on a plate and should at least show some gratitude. My grandad's generation had it hard (4 years in the trenches, the Great Depression, the Blitz). And my son's generation have it far far harder than we ever did, because so many of the benefits listed above have been taken from them. Yes, they have play stations, mobile phones, new clothes and skinny lattes - but what good are those when you barely earn enough to rent a room in a shared house in **** part of your home town?

 

[Schad]

And this is not specific to that monolith of everything wrong with the world, the Millennials. The generation after the Millennials already faces a harder road than their predecessors, as well, and without drastic changes the generation following them will have an even worse time of it. And if, at some point, I start complaining that those youth are splurging on 20p beans instead of hunting stray cats, I hope someone does me the kindness of throwing a brick at my head.

 

[VocalMinority]

Imps, you're making a lot of generalisations about young people there.

I'm only 25, when i was in college i found Asda had a deal on packets of instant noodles that were usually 14p but half price to 7p. Bought a trolly full of them which became my off day lunches for a fair while. Tasted like cardboard .

Used to get my computers by going around blocks of flats, finding broken computers and raiding them for working parts and using them to build a new PC. Somebody threw out an external hard-drive because they dropped it and broke the case but the harddrive inside was fine so i rescued it, removed the case, and is still sitting as an internal harddrive in my PC right now with lots of my old college files on it. Even got my old TV the same way, which doubled as a monitor.

Personally don't think its fair to say either had it harder, just different culture, different challenges.

 

[ImpSaint]

But these are minimal savings in the grand scheme. When 40-50% of your wages (if you're working a pretty good job, for that matter) are going toward housing and servicing debt, saving 10p on Aspirin will not actually get you ahead.

Yes, yes, every previous generation pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and younger ones simply aren't toughing it out. This, as it in turns out, is what every generation has thought of the generations that came thereafter.

Because, when you're financially strapped, hanging out with a friend over a £2 coffee or £7 meal is the sort of luxury you can actually afford? Unless anyone doing more than wearing sackcloth and sleeping in a cardboard box represents unnecessary extravagance in your opinion.

It has nothing to do with Netflix or coffees, because these are utterly trivial expenses. One is not going to get themselves out from under a six-figure mortgage by forgoing coffee and Netflix and name-brand beans. Indeed, the fact that younger people have turned to Netflix and other cheap streaming services for their entertainment rather than expensive satellite packages and large TVs is often breathlessly cited as bringing about the death of the television industry, so it might be a particularly inapt choice.

The housing market is a problem. However outside of London where do we get this idea of people spending 40-50% of their wages on housing and servicing debt? Why do they have debts? What are these debts on? Why do they have so much credit? And do you not think "back then" that mortgage repayments were much higher proportionally to the amount borrowed due to the high interest rates and the types of mortgages they were? Do they account for this as a percentage of take home pay or gross? Seeing as average wages are much higher in real terms than 1966, that average tax is 20% compared to the 41% in 1966.

Stats and numbers can be used to support any narrative. When you lost half your wage (which is less in real terms) to taxes/NI back then are you really sure that you can compare that to now?

Again you are ignoring everything else and narrowing it down to a pure wages vs house price+bills. Are they sitting on knackered out sofas that were free? Are they leaving the decorating as it is for ages? Nope. They get the credit card out, shop crawl from IKEA to Argos to B&Q and within a year the house looks like a show home. And they are struggling? Yes they are. They were before they decided to go and spend all that lot on brand new stuff.

Where do you get the idea that the "struggling" young are ditching the large TV in favour of netflix on a phone? Only the ones that still live with Mum. The ones renting all have their big TVs with netflix and stuff. They don;t move out of their parents home and stick to their mobile to watch their programs! Unlike those of us that settled for a "gimme" 14" TV until we could afford a little bit bigger.

Archer's comment made me chuckle. My Mum and Dad had a Radio Rentals TV probably up to about 1995. In the 70s/80s it was because they couldn't afford to buy a TV. From about 1990 onward it was more habit I suspect.

I standby my comments. I feel sorry for them r.e. property ownership but lose all respect for them when they say the old have had it better. They had sweet F A but hard work until they hit the second half of their mortgages and they earned their comfort for the prioritising and sacrificing they did to get to that level of comfort. Something this whining generation do not comprehend......that you can't have everything.

If house prices do come down they will still load up on credit.

Have you seen these:

You must log in or register to see images

or this link (USA based I think):
https://www.aei.org/publication/thi...ast-its-not-its-now-cheaper-than-ever-before/

And when they show you those graphs to support their "prices are rising" statements they shouldn't be cutting it off at 2005 to prove their point. They should be showing the true story of just how cheap everything is with graphs that go back to the 60s to now!!! (ignoring houses and beer of course.)

 

[ImpSaint]

Personally don't think its fair to say either had it harder, just different culture, different challenges.

The most honest answer on here rather than oldies saying they did not have it hard. I don;t consider I "had it hard" but then I found fun with what I had instead of moaning constantly that I couldn't afford x or y. Similar to me today in my forties stating quite honestly that welfare is too high and I can save up a decent bit of it.

My Mum and Dad had it harder than people do now. They most definitely had to sacrifice a lot to provide for their family (and of course buying a house was part of that back then) and my Mum and Dad only ever went out once a year...........on their wedding anniversary.

Yes my Dad has a whopping pension and they have paid off their mortgage, have money in the bank and are pretty comfortable however that is not down to "having it better" it is to do with knuckling down and virtually "giving up" a part of their life to get where they are now.

And while I concede that vocal minority is right that it is a sweeping generalisation it isn't that far from the truth.

different culture/different challenges I agree with. in 1966 average wages 2 thirds of today. average tax was double. Food was more expensive. etc. I'm sorry but when I hear the tosh on TV about how hard this generation has it compared to those before I just switch off at the ridiculousness of the argument. They are comparing the last generation's outcome and ignoring what preceded that outcome.

 

[ImpSaint]

And this is not specific to that monolith of everything wrong with the world, the Millennials. The generation after the Millennials already faces a harder road than their predecessors, as well, and without drastic changes the generation following them will have an even worse time of it. And if, at some point, I start complaining that those youth are splurging on 20p beans instead of hunting stray cats, I hope someone does me the kindness of throwing a brick at my head.

I will never complain about someone splurging on 20p on beans. I wouldn't complain about them splurging on £10 beans. I would only complain if they then moaned about how hard they have it while splurging out on £10 beans every night, when 20p beans are readily availble. And rightly so Complain is a bad word. Ignore their moaning would be more apt.

 

[Archers Road]

The most honest answer on here rather than oldies saying they did not have it hard. I don;t consider I "had it hard" but then I found fun with what I had instead of moaning constantly that I couldn't afford x or y. Similar to me today in my forties stating quite honestly that welfare is too high and I can save up a decent bit of it.

My Mum and Dad had it harder than people do now. They most definitely had to sacrifice a lot to provide for their family (and of course buying a house was part of that back then) and my Mum and Dad only ever went out once a year...........on their wedding anniversary.

Yes my Dad has a whopping pension and they have paid off their mortgage, have money in the bank and are pretty comfortable however that is not down to "having it better" it is to do with knuckling down and virtually "giving up" a part of their life to get where they are now.

And while I concede that vocal minority is right that it is a sweeping generalisation it isn't that far from the truth.

different culture/different challenges I agree with. in 1966 average wages 2 thirds of today. average tax was double. Food was more expensive. etc. I'm sorry but when I hear the tosh on TV about how hard this generation has it compared to those before I just switch off at the ridiculousness of the argument. They are comparing the last generation's outcome and ignoring what preceded that outcome.

I think you live in a bit of a bubble Imps. You could really do with getting out of it now and again.

 

[Archers Road]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41655915

 

[tiggermaster]

Lots of swings and roundabouts on the costs, except in housing. I'm 66 and the big difference I perceive is about opportunity. I left school at 15 having blown it, changed my 'career' at 22. Ended up with a successful professional career educated to Masters level. There are many of my generation who can tell a similar story. Second chances and lifelong learning may not be opportunities readily open to the young of today..

 

[Whiteley Saint]

I always find talk of today's personal debt interesting. I feel I could only make an informed decision as to the reason for the high levels of debt if I could see peoples income and expenditure. That's probably because I used to work in a bank doing lending.

I have no doubt that some have racked up the debt for genuine unforeseen circumstances but having worked in a bank I know for certain that some are just rubbish with money. I saw something this morning where someone had had their card limit increased without asking. Did they just ignore it or ask the lender to put it back down? No they spent it and were blaming the lender. Well ok the lender did give it to them but did they have to spend it? Not in this instance. I know people who just spend on material things and have absolutely no savings. They could have but they spend every penny and more. My point is, yes some are genuinely struggling and need help but there are a fair few who just spend because it's there. I dread to think what will happen to all these people when the interest rates start going up.

 

[ImpSaint]

Lots of swings and roundabouts on the costs, except in housing. I'm 66 and the big difference I perceive is about opportunity. I left school at 15 having blown it, changed my 'career' at 22. Ended up with a successful professional career educated to Masters level. There are many of my generation who can tell a similar story. Second chances and lifelong learning may not be opportunities readily open to the young of today..

I agree with that.

 

[ImpSaint]

I saw something this morning where someone had had their card limit increased without asking. Did they just ignore it or ask the lender to put it back down? No they spent it and were blaming the lender. Well ok the lender did give it to them but did they have to spend it? Not in this instance. I know people who just spend on material things and have absolutely no savings. They could have but they spend every penny and more. My point is, yes some are genuinely struggling and need help but there are a fair few who just spend because it's there. I dread to think what will happen to all these people when the interest rates start going up.

My credit card lender keep upping my limit. I don't use it though for anything other than a high value purchase rather than use different cards and then pay it off when I get home.

I don;t know why they think I should have an £8k limit on my credit card when I am on welfare and classed as in poverty but there ya go. Might go car shopping tomorrow (I jest.)

 

[Whiteley Saint]

My credit car lender keep upping my limit. I don;t use it though for anything other than a high value purchase rather than use different cards and then pay it off when I get home.

I don;t know why they think I should have an £8k limit on my credit card when I am on welfare and classed as in poverty but there ya go. Might go car shopping tomorrow (I jest.)

I have to admit I thought they had stopped doing that. My lender keeps offering me an increased limit but at least if I wanted it I would have to apply. They don't just do it.

The credit card companies don't make any money from me. They must hate people like me it's all take, take, take.

 

[Archers Road]

I somehow doubt the following is all down to bad money management from profligate spenders;




UK Personal Debt
PEOPLE IN THE UK OWED £1.554 TRILLION AT THE END OF AUGUST 2017. THIS IS UP FROM £1.5 TRILLION AT THE END OF JULY 2016 – AN EXTRA £1029.82 PER UK ADULT.

THE AVERAGE TOTAL DEBT PER HOUSEHOLD – INCLUDING MORTGAGES – WAS £57,331 IN AUGUST. THE REVISED FIGURE FOR JULY WAS £57,136.

PER ADULT IN THE UK THAT’S AN AVERAGE DEBT OF £30,012 IN AUGUST – AROUND 114%OF AVERAGE EARNINGS. THIS IS SLIGHTLY UP FROM A REVISED £29,910 A MONTH EARLIER.

BASED ON AUGUST 2017 TRENDS, THE UK’S TOTAL INTEREST REPAYMENTS ON PERSONAL DEBT OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD WOULD HAVE BEEN £49.720 BILLION.

• THAT’S AN AVERAGE OF £129 MILLION PER DAY.
• THIS MEANS THAT HOUSEHOLDS IN THE UK WOULD HAVE PAID AN AVERAGE OF £1,835 IN ANNUAL INTEREST REPAYMENTS. PER PERSON THAT’S £960 – 3.65%OF AVERAGE EARNINGS.

ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE FOR BUDGET RESPONSIBILITY’S MARCH 2017 FORECAST, HOUSEHOLD DEBT IS PREDICTED TO REACH £2.322 TRILLION IN Q1 2022. THIS MAKES THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD DEBT £86,001 (ASSUMING THAT THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE UK REMAINED THE SAME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN).

OUTSTANDING CONSUMER CREDIT LENDING WAS £203.030 BILLION AT THE END OF AUGUST 2017.

• THIS IS UP FROM £188.4 BILLION AT THE END OF JULY 2016, AND IS AN INCREASE OF £369 FOR EVERY ADULT IN THE UK.

PER HOUSEHOLD, THAT’S AN AVERAGE CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT OF £7,492 IN AUGUST, UP FROM A REVISED £7,434 IN JULY – AND £538.78EXTRA PER HOUSEHOLD OVER THE YEAR.

• IT ALSO MEANS THE AVERAGE CONSUMER CREDIT BORROWING STOOD AT £3,922 PER UK ADULT. THIS IS UP FROM A REVISED £3,892 IN JULY.

TOTAL CREDIT CARD DEBT IN AUGUST 2017 WAS £68.8BN. PER HOUSEHOLD THIS IS £2,539 – FOR A CREDIT CARD BEARING THE AVERAGE INTEREST, IT WOULD TAKE 26 YEARS AND 1 MONTH TO REPAY IF YOU MADE ONLY THE MINIMUM REPAYMENT EACH MONTH.

• THE MINIMUM REPAYMENT IN THE FIRST MONTH WOULD BE £61 BUT REDUCES EACH MONTH. IF YOU PAID £60 EVERY MONTH, THE DEBT WOULD BE CLEARED IN AROUND 5 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS.

PER HOUSEHOLD, THAT’S AN AVERAGE CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT OF £7,492 IN AUGUST, UP FROM A REVISED £7,434IN JULY – AND £538.78 EXTRA PER HOUSEHOLD OVER THE YEAR.

IT ALSO MEANS THE AVERAGE CONSUMER CREDIT BORROWING STOOD AT £3,922 PER UK ADULT. THIS IS UP FROM A REVISED £3,892 IN JULY.




Source: The Money Charity

 

[ImpSaint]

I have to admit I thought they had stopped doing that. My lender keeps offering me an increased limit but at least if I wanted it I would have to apply. They don't just do it.

The credit card companies don't make any money from me. They must hate people like me it's all take, take, take.

They didn't offer me it. They just send me a letter to say they have increased my limit. I don't ask them to. It was just a £500 limit when I got it a few years ago.

 

[Puck]

I've just watched that....all 17 minutes. No I am not Brendan O 'Neill despite that video sounding like my words. I agree with 99.99% of what he says there. The only thing I don;t agree with is early on r.e. the environment part. We should be looking after the environment although I do have doubts as to how much "looking after the environment" is going on and more than a cynical impression that it is more about "how much can we earn out of this."

Saying that I do turn my lights off when I leave a room. I do turn off my TV and other stuff. I have LEDs throughout the house (Poundland sells LEDs.......for a pound) and I do recycle religiously. That is just common sense but doesn't stop the suspicion (reality) that there is a lot more to do with earning money out of the green issue than actually solving it. After all how can the same person who argues in favour of cheaper flights and commute into work everyday bang on about the environment.

And how can they say they like nature when their gardens are the same manicured unnatural squares as non environmentalists. When nature happens in their gardens they rip it out.

His main sentiment is the same as mine r.e. what globalisation (the process not the sales pitch) actually is. The whole idea that we/some of us of a certain disposition are being moulded to conform. That the oxymoron of what liberals talk about as freedom is actually a suppression of freedom. That these people are being manipulated as pawns of the "establishment." It is strange he uses the same phrases as me, calling them "footsoldiers" but then I have been noticing a fair few of these type of commentators using phrases that I have used for a long time. Maybe because I have quite literally thousands, if not a million or more, posts on several platforms and a lot of these journalists actually do read comment sections because they want to get a feel of "public mood." They don't "click off" because there are so many racist or insulting comments (neither do I) because you have to sift past them to get to the valid and well thought out ones. "clicking off" just leaves you in an echo chamber.

Anyway, Brendan O'Neill (based on what he says in that video) is 100% on the money and correct. And he is a far-leftie marxist. While "modern day centrist" lefties might consider him being against humanitarianism because they want a narrow and limited viewpoint of who can be in their group, I see what he is saying as trying to help people wake up from their conformity and realise that they aren't making the world better, they are holding it back.

And he is totally right r.e. BBS living in squalor. Maybe different for the affluent folks of Southampton on this forum but I remember my Grandparent's house in Romford had an outdoor loo as did my Grandparent's house in Stanmore Winchester. By the time I went to these places they of course also had an indoor bathroom but that is by the by. These were 70s additions.

Incidentally. The house I grew up in still has an outdoor loo. Just that the door on the outside has been bricked up and one put in-between the kitchen and a radiator added within. The house I grew up in has a tiny 3rd bedroom literally the size of a king size bed wall to wall. That is because of a small bathroom being added in the 70s which made that bedroom much smaller.

The house that I grew up in was decorated once in a blue moon and by the time I left in 2004 (yes I lived at home until 29) it still had the same horrible shiplap wood panels on the walls of the living room that were there when my parents moved in in 1981!!! I would guess that in that 23 year spell of living in that house each room had a change of wallpaper once!!! And furniture changed once!!! Previous generations did not continually update their decor.

Do you disagree with Brendan O'Neill? I think people who do disagree with him are in for a shock that there are more people who agree with him in this country than disagree despite the constant bombardment on the TV, radio and internet telling them that they must not think this way, speak this way or act this way. You are not allowed to behave that way. We are banning you from being free so conform. Although his views on open borders might not get such an agreement.

The amount of times in that video Peter Tatchell nods in agreement and suppresses a chuckle (many times unsuccessfully) should tell you something.

Anyway thank god that populism has been defeated again in Austria eh? Will the EU put sanctions on Austria like they did last time if the FPO go into coalition? Or just insist that they aren;t allowed like they did in Portugal?

Blimey, I wasn't expecting such a long response (probably should have to be fair).

He's one of several current "non-conformist" commentators I find interesting. He wrote a very good piece a couple of weeks ago on the Vegas killings why the killer isn't a terrorist (there was no political aim to his killing). He's a bit abrasive for my taste but no doubt some of that's for show. I agree with most of what he says in that video about free speech, identity politics, the EU, people's fragility and the current trend towards victimhood. Like you I don't entirely share his view on environmentalism (although I do think that we need to be careful about what we do in this area - shutting down power stations and large green levies could lead to serious immediate problems) and I'm not sure I'd be quite as keen to put forward women (or men for that matter) who go on holiday and have sex with 27 people in 2 weeks while off their head on booze as positive examples, although I accept the point he's making.

 

[ImpSaint]

Blimey, I wasn't expecting such a long response (probably should have to be fair).

He's one of several current "non-conformist" commentators I find interesting. He wrote a very good piece a couple of weeks ago on the Vegas killings why the killer isn't a terrorist (there was no political aim to his killing). He's a bit abrasive for my taste but no doubt some of that's for show. I agree with most of what he says in that video about free speech, identity politics, the EU, people's fragility and the current trend towards victimhood. Like you I don't entirely share his view on environmentalism (although I do think that we need to be careful about what we do in this area - shutting down power stations and large green levies could lead to serious immediate problems) and I'm not sure I'd be quite as keen to put forward women (or men for that matter) who go on holiday and have sex with 27 people in 2 weeks while off their head on booze as positive examples, although I accept the point he's making.

One thing I disagree with is his open borders views. He argues against the EU being pro immigration stating that it is a fortress and that is why so many risk their lives trying to get into the EU "illegally." His suggestion is that anyone should be able to come in, not just those who got lucky and have an EU passport. I can;t say I agree with that at all. I am not anti-immigration at all. I am all in favour of filling skills gaps but if the world were to fully open borders in this way we know that the world would be empty and everybody would be in the US, UK, France and Germany. It would be chaos with everybody moving to where they perceive the riches to be. Sort of reverse colonialism.

 

[Archers Road]

One thing I disagree with is his open borders views. He argues against the EU being pro immigration stating that it is a fortress and that is why so many risk their lives trying to get into the EU "illegally." His suggestion is that anyone should be able to come in, not just those who got lucky and have an EU passport. I can;t say I agree with that at all. I am not anti-immigration at all. I am all in favour of filling skills gaps but if the world were to fully open borders in this way we know that the world would be empty and everybody would be in the US, UK, France and Germany. It would be chaos with everybody moving to where they perceive the riches to be. Sort of reverse colonialism.

Sounds good to me. I'd go and live in Italy or Spain when everyone else has moved over here.

 

[TheSecondStain]

I disagree. The narrative ignores the sacrifices that "BBS" made to get to where they are now. The focus is entirely on "they have all the wealth" and ignores what went before. Just think about another simple one. Why do most "oldies" record collections stop at the year they settled down? Because you had to buy your music so it was another thing they gave up. Young people get their music free these days and young adults continue to consume "new music" throughout their settled life.

The previous generations have their comfort now because they sacrificed the "niceties" before. Your mention of "modicum of sense" is key there. They cut everything out to get those houses because they had sense.

bbs had free access to higher education? How many did? You are equating an era where only the cream (<7%) had the opportunity for that while we are in an era where over 50% have that chance. And with my cycnical hat on (for a rare occasion ) that is more to do with falsifying the unemployment figures and "hoorah, we have the lowest youth unemployment in Europe." Add into that the majority will never pay that money back it is just a headline statement.

I am not saying it is not hard for younger people in society. I am just questioning the constant suggestion that previous generations had it better. They might have it better now but they didn't while they were getting where they are now.

The reality is that the ones moaning ARE the ones that are going the higher education route. The ones, as you say, didn't chance their arm looking for work at 16. The ones really struggling are the other 50% that can;t get into Uni despite the abundance of places (and thus lower entry requirements.)

And I would question that the young are "way more educated" than the average older person. That is a ridiculous statement. How many of the "educated" young do you need to correct when they come out with their limited learning of history, geography and any number of other things? That is a terrible statement to come out with. My Grandparents all left school at 14, 15. My Grandads worked as a postman and Assembly line worker at Ford Dagenham. My grandmothers both housewifes. They had more knowledge in their brains than any young will ever get despite the access to information on the internet. They had knowledge of the world, customs. You could ask them all sorts of things on most subjects and they would know the answer to a pretty good level of detail. They knew how everything worked, where virtually every country was, a detailed knowledge of history (not just the wars.) They knew all about physics and sciences and most importantly could write in perfect legilble English with correct grammar and punctuation and they could add up without a calculator (or iphone app.)

If education is based purely on going to Uni then I'm afraid they need to scrap most of that and get the young back into the real world and back to 3 TV channels because what a lot of Uni students come out with is a pile of **** showing that they have not learned anything.

Yes they might have more language skills. They might have a much more in depth knowledge of their "chosen" subject. That is through opportunity though and no fault of the old nor any indicator of aptitude or intelligence. Most Uni students would get beaten in a tough quiz by an oldie that didn;t go to Uni because these days they seem to have such a limited area of knowledge.

I left school at 16. I would take most Uni students on in an IQ test and general knowledge test. I bet I would beat most of them. OF course there are still that "cream" of 7% that should be at Uni but the rest?

When they stop moaning about how the BBS had it better and realise they didn't, they scrapped and scraped to get to where they are now then I will listen to them. But they won't. They do not realise that in their "tough lives" they have all sorts of "normalities" that previous generations would have cut out. Just in the food they think of as normal regular and not luxury there is a vast amount that previous generations would have cut out of their budget in order to get to where they are.

As for pensions. The previous generations paid higher tax, higher NI contributions, no tax credits, no free daycare so Mum had to stay at home, high inflation, high interest rates. They paid more % into the pot while they were working and yet now they are attacked for how "easy they had things?"

Blame the government for spending what they put in if you want but the young can F*** off until they realise how hard previous generations had it compared to what they consider hard now.

It is strange how previous generations just got on and made the best out of things, Had fun for as little money as possible. We used to talk about grumpy old men but the ones that do all the moaning these days are the young.

I wouldn't expect you to agree. You're usual looking at things from your own perspective instead of having a world view.