Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Won't somebody think of "young people"? (Edit: and No, older people aren't "to blame")

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,205
Reaction score
450
Location
Derbyshire
Why can't everyone else replicate that success?
It's a mathematical conundrum!
Crudely; if some people earn 5 x the average, then some other people earn one fifth of the average.
But therein lies the answer to society's biggest problem! If high earnings were lowered and low earnings raised, then those earning least, could be better off!
So simple!
 
Last edited:

doctor Bob

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
752
Location
Matching Green
  • If we come to the idea of starting a business:
    • Again not everyone has the skills and abilities needed to grow a business to the size where it will support a £150k director's salary,
    • Even if they do, finding the start up capital is a major shortcoming for someone who isn't making a great deal of money to begin with
    • If you're forced to go all in to your business just to have a shot and have no significant personal reserves of cash in case it doesn't work out, then the psychological stress is likely to make you perform less well and make less effective business decisions.
    • Around 60% of small businesses fail with 3 years, which is a pretty terrifying level of risk to take on if you have family comittments... Not everyone is willing or even able to take those kinds of risks.
Hi, trust me, never start a business.
Everyone I know with a business started it thinking "I could do alright here", not having a pre determined list of why it will fail.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,659
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
I'm consistently shocked by how often they're willing to buy a service with markup, which they could deliver substantially cheaper in-house if they were willing to commit, sometimes even when they already have the capability in house
The private sector seem to spend their money on branding.....lovely sign written vans god awful service.

Private sector has shareholder profits not the customer as their priority.

Privatisation is driven partly by ideology and partly by vested self interest.

Covid emergency legislation is a rather good example....it enabled tendering processes to be thrown out, scrutiny to be avoided allowing noses in the trough the order of the day.

Privatisation of NHS services is a cash cow for current politicians, loads of them have interest in the private healthcare sector
 

rafezetter

Troll Hunter
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Messages
2,820
Reaction score
106
Location
Bristol
I agree with the sentiments in your first point, but the reality is that whatever system/rules we have, there will always be those who are motivated to try and skew things in their favour (the extend to which they succeed and/or are seen to succeed is a measure of how much of a problem this is).

Re. your second point, I have a real problem with the emotive language "crisis..vicious..poverty" and the ideas behind it.

1) In this country we have been brainwashed into thinking that we must aspire to own property. Renters are much more "mobile" if they want to be and "secure" if they don't want to be - they can move to a new location to take up new work without the time and (large) costs associated with buying/selling/owning. Many people in many parts of the world, including the UK (and indeed several of my neighbours) live long, contented and productive lives in rented dwellings of one sort or another. A healthy rental market is almost certainly "a good thing" for a country/economy.

2) Even in this country, mass property ownership is a relatively new invention - driven by lenders being enabled (since the 1980s or so), by deregulation, to lend to those who then bid up the prices of existing houses - in certain areas, but not in others. Prior to the 1970s/80s, buying a house - or most anything else - with borrowed money was very difficult.

3) As above, an even newer invention is the expansion of "buy to let" - again driven by deregulation of lending - causing more money to be thrown at the market.

4) Regarding the proportion of houshold income, food takes up much less than in did historically, housing surprisingly similar to historical averages (barring some hotspots).

It was the illegal and cynical corruption of lending against property, mainly but not exclusively in the US, which stored up the problems which have led to negative real intererst rates post-2008 (talk about a wealth tax - it's already been happening!). The fact that a house which was worth £20K 20 years ago and is now worth £400K, or whatever, is really simply an indication of how we have debased our currency.

An excellent way to bring house prices down would be to put the brakes on all lending against property, however, spookily, there would still be those who couldn't afford to buy property (and actually, I don't see why that should be a problem).

This pretty much.

As a person whom has lived in privately rented accomodation all my adult life (51 now) since the age of 17, I can say I've also seen the flip side of the housing situation up close with family members and friends. My (older) cousin bought a house in Bradley Stoke in the late 80's, then spent the next roughly ten years being unable to sell it due to negative equity when it turned out half the houses built on those estates were garbage - he couldn't even get buildings insurance.

My father bought a £325,000 house in an affulent area just by the Epsom racecourse only to learn, that the "comprehensive" survey was anything but and the exterior walls were bowing out because when the pevious owners did the loft converstion they just CUT OUT all the crossbeam supports and didn't replace them. 4 years and almost £90,000 in legal fees the surveying company was forced to pay for the remedial work, which was significant and expensive.

A member here and his wife, now in thier 60's, bought a house in the 80's in an affluent area in Bristol only to find about 10 years ago that the house was slowly sinking on one side, subsidence, which was DENIED in the survey report he had done, but afaik cracks in the walls dont appear on thier own - he has no idea if he's going to even be able to sell, the only hope he has right now is that he's got an official survey (paid for by the house insurers) stating no subsidence; if another survey says there is - he's boned.

A friend in Wales bought a property in Brecon, only to find out after the sale had been signed that there was a boundary dispute with the neighbour, which led to him having to give HALF his driveway on the side of the building to next door, because at some point in the past a previous owner had effectively stolen that land from the then neighbour. It's my personal beleif many solicitors and those who do surveys etc cannot even remotely be trusted to do thier jobs properly, and for a high value house it might be worth getting TWO independenet ones done.

When owning a house - work on that house is ALWAYS ongoing, and I don't mean redecorating, I mean actual work and remedial work - the young who seem to think getting a house is all roses and caviar are fools, it'll cost you thousands a year ON TOP of the mortagage payments and you'll spend more time than you realise staring at various types of "U bend" or fixing some other issue because you can't afford a plumber at £50 an hour plus callout.

Renters get to pass all that along to the landlord - true story - our cooker (a range hob) broke on XMAS DAY (for the second time). Now because it's a HMO with 6 bedrooms, no cooker is a big deal, and because it's a 6 bed, a basic standard 4 ring hob just doesn't cut it. I contact the landlord whom assigned the job of sorting the replacement to me (I've been managing this place for 15 years) £1700 later (inc installation fees etc) and we have a new cooker.

Not so many households can suddenly find £1700 overnight for a new range hob (and yes £1700 as it'll take a lot of use so needed to be good quality).

Owning property can become a noose to buyers, and that's even before you bring the issues of failed relationships into the equation.

While the current laws do not give renters the safety of not being evicted without cause, there have been steps taken to reduce it, and people whom are good tenants are seen as assets to a rental property, not a liability, I should know, I've lived here 15 years and the house has been sold TWICE during my tenancy. From family home > landlord 2 years after I moved (2006) in then again in 2013 when the landlord had to liqiudate her assets to emigrate to New Zealand, she vouched for me as a good tenant who looks after the property, and here I still am.

Renting is not quite the minefield many people (usually the young) lead others to beleive, you just have to be savvy about where, and from whom to rent, and treat the property as if it was your own, which from what I gather seems to be rare, many renters ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG have a reputation for leaving properties in a terrible state, costing the landlords far more than the value of the deposit to put right.

Landlords cannot truly be blamed for the amount of property they own - with the state of the economy etc etc, it's historically become one of the few ways to increase your personal wealth without significant risk - apart from the caveats above and the 2008 crash - My fathers cash and stocks asset value has been diminishing in real terms, year on year since BEFORE the 2008 crash and it's a seven figure sum, under previous economies a liquid asset value larger than £1,000,000 would see excellent returns, not only has it seen no good returns, it's essentially been stagnant for TWELVE YEARS, Twelve years without growth.

Now the picture of why so many people, with assets buy property looks a little different, doesn't it. (my father hasn't BTW - because he also knows the perils of property becoming essentially another mouth to feed and tying up currenty liquid assets)

You cannot also blame landlords for cashing in on a depressed market after 2008 - that's just human nature and I defy almost anyone under 60 to state were they in the same position with some spare cash, they would not have done the same. It also ALWAYS been this way - my great greandmother owned an entire street in Wales many years past, and from all accounts was a very good landlord, fairminded and honest.

Jelly, you talk about pensions etc yet seem to be unaware that in recent years the pension ages were increased significantly? from 60>65 for women (soon to be 66 and will be 68 by 2028) and for men it's 70 I think.

Because of this 5 year increase, many people die before they can even claim their pension benefits that they have paid into all thier lives, and many more, soon after. Also, as mentioned, there's all those pensions pots that got raided by various unsavory types such that an entire lifes worth of scrimping and "going without the latest iPhone" and "no holiday this year" has come to nought.

As droogs said - while seemingly harsh, some of the assessment of the younger generation is fair and pretty accurate - you can't have everything you want AND all of lifes luxuries like netflix, starbucks, new phones every 2 years, beats headphones AND holidays in exotic places. You have to CHOOSE, just like your parents did. The young also forget that many of them have the luxury of still living at home on thier parent's dime, paying little to no rent, but still living what many others would consider a very comfortable lifestyle with wall to wall heating, and broadband on tap - all paid for by SOMEONE ELSE.

I agree things are stacked against the younger generations, and I agree it can paint a bleak outlook, but I also agree it's up to them to do something about it, and one of the first steps is to STOP blaming the older generations - do you honestly think we CHOSE for 2008 to happen with millions losing thier jobs and homes in many cases, AND pensions pots and savings evaporating?

The absolute truth is that for the majority of us, this caka happened to US as well as you, and only a few out of every thousand managed to cash in on it - the rest of us got boned just like you did.

Try to remember that in future, please, before your next indignant /rant at how rubbish it is for you and it's "our" fault.

and remember one more thing you have, that we do not.

Time.

You've got time to remedy your situations, for many / most of the people who lost a lifetimes worth of hard work, this is the new - poorer - reality and no time to "fix" it.

I'm pretty sure that is the viewpoint that droogs and others are coming from, best remember that too.

Edit: here's a thing, why don't you have this same conversation of "you old people ruined it for us" with your parents and parents of your peers - that'll be an interesting one for you.
 
Last edited:

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,205
Reaction score
450
Location
Derbyshire
...I'm consistently shocked by how often they're willing to buy a service with markup, which they could deliver substantially cheaper in-house if they were willing to commit, sometimes even when they already have the capability in house.
........
It's been the simple minded driving ideology of the last 50 years and been made obligatory in many areas with PFI etc.
 

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,205
Reaction score
450
Location
Derbyshire
.........Owning property can become a noose to buyers, and that's even before you bring the issues of failed relationships into the equation..........
True.
But in fact almost everybody who has scrambled on to the housing ladder in the last 50 years or more, will be better off in terms of assets, than those who did not.
The divergence is still growing at a pace.
A whole generation has found that they get richer (on paper) by owning property than they could possibly do by working. Even the burst bubble of 2008 (sudden negative equity for a lot of people) has been absorbed and safely passed by.
 

billw

The Tattooed One
UKW Supporter
Joined
26 Apr 2009
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
847
Location
Sutton Coldfield, UK
I saw the other day that the value of the U.K. housing stock is around £9tn, but really what does that even matter? Everyone needs somewhere to live and house prices are all relative anyway.

Housing value does virtually nothing for the economy, apart from estate agents fees and mortgage interest. Even council tax has a ludicrously low upper limit.
 

Jester129

Established Member
UKW Supporter
Joined
16 Feb 2020
Messages
114
Reaction score
53
Location
Northwest Leicestershire
True.
But in fact almost everybody who has scrambled on to the housing ladder in the last 50 years or more, will be better off in terms of assets, than those who did not.
The divergence is still growing at a pace.
A whole generation has found that they get richer (on paper) by owning property than they could possibly do by working. Even the burst bubble of 2008 (sudden negative equity for a lot of people) has been absorbed and safely passed by.
In a previous post you moaned about Thatcher. Now it's my turn - who robbed us of our pension pots and put the nail in the coffin lid for final salary pensions? I believe it was a certain Gordon Brown.
As ever in life, things swing both ways/two sides to a coin etc.
The older generation have fought and worked hard to own one asset - their home, sometimes at 15% interest. If you had saved hard for the last 10 years, you would have the money for a deposit on a house at practically 0% interest, something we NEVER had. Tell me, did you? Don't bleat about the older generation, we had it hard, I can assure you! Rant over.
 

Billy_wizz

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
36
Location
LUTTERWORTH
Erm......are you REALLY asking that question? What's stopping people? How many jobs paying £150k a year do you think there are in the UK?
Stop letting other people set the limit for your earning potential and start your own business! Or go back to university and get a degree that leads to a job paying 150k a year! There are generally 2 reasons why some get more than others and it comes down to hard work and talent hard work being the most important
 

Jelly

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2012
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
312
Location
Sheffield
I agree things are stacked against the younger generations, and I agree it can paint a bleak outlook, but I also agree it's up to them to do something about it, and one of the first steps is to STOP blaming the older generation.

...

Edit: here's a thing, why don't you have this same conversation of "you old people ruined it for us" with your parents and parents of your peers - that'll be an interesting one for you.
At no point have I actually blamed the older generation.

I have pointed out that older people happen to have become the net beneficiaries of certain policies which disproportionately hurt younger people.

I suspect it still feels very uncomfortable to be identified as being part of that group, and that it might be especially galling when you're not one of the individuals who has actually seen any of the benefit...

But this isn't about you, or any other individual, it's about the aggregate impact of a range of government policies between the mid 1980's and the present day, on different age groups.

And I would be shocked if anyone historically went out on polling day thinking:
"I really want to vote for people who will ultimately do a bunch of things which make my kids worse off than me,".
Yet here we are.

- do you think we CHOSE for 2008 to happen with millions losing thier jobs and homes in many cases, AND pensions pots and savings evaporating.
No-one in their right mind would have voted directly for that to happen....

But as a nation we did historically vote for Thatcher and Major who set in motion the wheels that would eventually cause those impacts, then Tony Blair who would do nothing to undo the risks the preceding government's decisions on deregulation had created in this area.

Again it wasn't intentional, but a choice was made and this is where we've landed as a nation.

The absolute truth is that for the majority of us, this caka happened to US as well as you, and only a few out of every thousand managed to cash in on it - the rest of us got boned just like you did.
I get that, and if you look at the substance of the issues in my first post it's obvious that I'm not claiming it's a straight case of all young people being worse off than all old people.

Many of the things that are hurting young people, also have significant negative impacts on all working age adults, and that's especially true for people in the North and Midlands who took vocational career paths.

But it still stands that all the data clearly shows the under 39's are disproportionately impacted and will end up worse off compared to their parents...
 

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,205
Reaction score
450
Location
Derbyshire
In a previous post you moaned about Thatcher. Now it's my turn - who robbed us of our pension pots and put the nail in the coffin lid for final salary pensions? I believe it was a certain Gordon Brown.
As ever in life, things swing both ways/two sides to a coin etc.
The older generation have fought and worked hard to own one asset - their home, sometimes at 15% interest. If you had saved hard for the last 10 years, you would have the money for a deposit on a house at practically 0% interest, something we NEVER had. Tell me, did you? Don't bleat about the older generation, we had it hard, I can assure you! Rant over.
What's Brown got to do with it? Pensions are not something I know about, having failed ever to earn enough to put aside for one! (always been self employed).
Low interest rates are cancelled by matching price rises. In real terms housing is much more expensive nowadays and homelessness more common, than either were at any time post war.
We own our house (my 6th!) and have spent on improvements on all of them, but can't say I've earned the grossly inflated prices they each attracted. Can't benefit from it either unless I sell up and take to a caravan. Perhaps a good idea, might do that.
 

Jameshow

Established Member
Joined
4 Oct 2020
Messages
674
Reaction score
309
Location
Bradford
I think the underlying issue is our change from a manufacturing based economy to a finance - services - retail - tourism economy.

When mrs T brought about this revolution she made it possible for the rich to get rich without hard work and the poor to get poorer despite hard work or without hard work.

But like a house of cards it came tumbling down in 2008 and 2020. In the finance sector and retail / hospitality sectors respectively.

We don't make enough ppe / ventilators / vaccine and hence we have supply issues in the NHS.

Just my uneducated thoughts!

Cheers James
 

Rorschach

Living on borrowed time
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
4,837
Reaction score
551
Location
Devon
If you had saved hard for the last 10 years, you would have the money for a deposit on a house at practically 0% interest, something we NEVER had. Tell me, did you? Don't bleat about the older generation, we had it hard, I can assure you! Rant over.
Another one totally ignorant to the realities of life for many. I can tell you from experience it is very hard to save for a deposit when house prices increase faster than you can save the equivalent money, which of course in a savings account also earns 0% :rolleyes:
 

doctor Bob

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
752
Location
Matching Green
My sons 20, he is a scaffolder.
He has a lot of friends, a pretty girlfriend, he's handsome, 6ft 4", fit as a fiddle, a decent car and oozes happiness.
I'd have taken all that at 20.
Hopefully he has the attitude to be happy in his life, that's all I want for him.

I've had both sides of the coin, not a penny in my pocket, to financially doing very well. The level of financial security had no influence on my happiness. That comes all from within, topped up by friends and family and dogs and inner ok-ness.

I genuinely believe optimism is a great tonic, happy people attact happy people and therefore spirits are lifted by each other. Negative people attract negative people etc. Sometimes you have to fake it, but it's a habit which can end up being natural.

Also, ditch social media if you feel lifes unfair, it's a terrible depressant if you believe it all.
 

Billy_wizz

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
36
Location
LUTTERWORTH
Another one totally ignorant to the realities of life for many. I can tell you from experience it is very hard to save for a deposit when house prices increase faster than you can save the equivalent money, which of course in a savings account also earns 0% :rolleyes:
My parents both took on an evening bar job on top of there normal job with all proceeds going into a savings account specifically for there deposit it was common amongst there friends and I suspect probably common in general! I wonder how many who say they can't save for a deposit are currently working 2 jobs?
 

Terry - Somerset

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2012
Messages
690
Reaction score
204
Location
Taunton
The economy is a zero sum game. Policies may impact growth by more or less than expected, but tensions over how the cake is shared remain.

If you earn £100k pa you are comfortably within the top 2% of income earners. Normality for 98% is that income is limited, choices need to be made, and not all aspirations can be fulfilled.

Some (the lucky few?) may be an exception, accepting that which they have and seeking to fulfill other life goals - contentment, free time, social interaction, quality of life.

Giving more to the young - income or assets will deny the older. Most older folk accumulate throughout 30-40 years of effort and feel justified in their final decades enjoying the fruits of their labours. This is not a defence of the status quo - simply an observation.

Where change is required is in inheritance laws. The effect of reducing the costs of the wealthy elderly (TV licences, care costs etc) is to increase the inheritance ultimately enjoyed by the children (normally).

This may the biggest driver of inequality - those who benefit from bank of mum and dad, have a good education, and at some point benefit from a legacy of £100k ++. Those not so blessed will struggle.

On this forum I suspect there may be a some resistance to these views!
 

deema

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2011
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
101
Location
chester
Never has there been such an opportunity to make money so quickly. The youth enjoy the advantage that no other generation has ever enjoyed, a truly global market that can be accessed from a bedroom. The richest people in the world, made their money in their own lifetimes, something that that could only be dreamed about. There are more millionaries created each day than there were at any other time in history. The overarching reason is that markets are so accessible. You can start a company tomorrow and in less than 10 years become a billionaire. It’s never happened before.
Now, the issue is that not everyone is entrepreneuria, wants to take the risk, or has the ability or talent to achieve. Global markets have allowed people to make money at levels never before achievable, hence the extreme discrepancies between the super wealthy and the lowest economic level in society. When compays were either locally based, or at best country based and in extremely cases Muticountry it limited the ability to accumulate wealth.
Manual labour, low level jobs are disappearing faster than at any time in history, mechanisation, computing, and a change in what people value has led to a situation that those without the necessary abilities will be left further and further behind. There will not be a factory a walk away that will take care of you for your life any more, so there is no point is wishing for it. Equally to suggest limiting people’s earning ability and capping salaries is simply to not understand or appreciate what is causing the wealth generation. If you can’t, or arnt allowed to make money in one country, you simply move to another where you can. Paying tax is a choice when you have sufficient money. You can choose to live or base your businesses in tax efficient places......a lot of which are far nicer than the UK both in climate and attitudes towards wealth . E.g. Monaco. So a strategy to limit wealth is a strategy to reduce the number of people in the top 1% who pay the majority of the taxes that support everyone else. Tax too much and again they move. The funny side is that reducing the taxes on the top earners actually increases revenues. More wealthy people choose to base their business and tax residency in that country. However, as most people don’t understand this relationship politically it’s very difficult. When taxes were increased to 90p in the pound in the ‘good old days of the UK’ the exit of the wealthy was massive.

The question I believe should really be what are we going to do with the increasing number of people who do not have, and will never have the skills or ability that are required by society. Through no fault of their own, they simply will never have the ability to amass wealth, or make a contribution to society that is valued. This is going to affect all ages in society, not just the young.
 

Spectric

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
363
Location
North Cumbria
Buying your own house is I believe an English thing, you know the saying an Englishmens home is his castle. Many europeans rent rather than buy but they have a more controlled rental system as far as I am aware. In hindsight how many home buyers out there would have rented rather than purchase if starting out again?
It used to be that people in council property probably had a lot more security than people buying, no risk of repro and all repairs done. I can still remember the rentman knocking on the door to collect something like £6.00 for the weeks rent and signing our rent book. Up until 1980 councils were not allowed to make any profit from rentals, but then came that dreaded tory government led by Thatcher, she realised one way to beat the trade unions was to allow people to buy their council houses and unfortunately many fell for her plot. Now with a mortgage they had to work or lose their home. But the sting in the tail was when inflation rocketed and people could no longer afford to keep their houses with many just handing the keys back, but if you had kids the council rehoused you anyway.
 

Spectric

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
363
Location
North Cumbria
Never has there been such an opportunity to make money so quickly. The youth enjoy the advantage that no other generation has ever enjoyed, a truly global market that can be accessed from a bedroom. The richest people in the world, made their money in their own lifetimes, something that that could only be dreamed about. There are more millionaries created each day than there were at any other time in history. The overarching reason is that markets are so accessible.
But there is more to life than just wealth, the one thing money cannot buy is happyness or time.
 

Billy_wizz

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
36
Location
LUTTERWORTH
The economy is a zero sum game. Policies may impact growth by more or less than expected, but tensions over how the cake is shared remain.

If you earn £100k pa you are comfortably within the top 2% of income earners. Normality for 98% is that income is limited, choices need to be made, and not all aspirations can be fulfilled.

Some (the lucky few?) may be an exception, accepting that which they have and seeking to fulfill other life goals - contentment, free time, social interaction, quality of life.

Giving more to the young - income or assets will deny the older. Most older folk accumulate throughout 30-40 years of effort and feel justified in their final decades enjoying the fruits of their labours. This is not a defence of the status quo - simply an observation.

Where change is required is in inheritance laws. The effect of reducing the costs of the wealthy elderly (TV licences, care costs etc) is to increase the inheritance ultimately enjoyed by the children (normally).

This may the biggest driver of inequality - those who benefit from bank of mum and dad, have a good education, and at some point benefit from a legacy of £100k ++. Those not so blessed will struggle.

On this forum I suspect there may be a some resistance to these views!
That view is quite frankly laughable people who are set to inherit generally do so because of the hard work and self sacrifice of there parents if you remove the rewards of hard work and self sacrifice then there becomes no reason for it so most if not all small businesses will get rid of all but essential staff because there will no longer be a reason for generating surplus and therefore will be no reason for putting up with award and difficult staff!
 
Top