Off Topic Politics Thread

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

please log in to view this image

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.)

 

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 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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 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.

 

I agree with that.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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