Why The Young Are Screwed

[Guest flumax]

In the Tory graph of all places. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html

If youre under 30, old people have stolen your future. And whats worse, you let them do it.This sounds like a sweeping generalisation. And, of course, we could argue over the details. But, bold and unshaded though this statement is, its pretty much true. On one hand there has been a huge intergenerational transfer of wealth upwards. And, on the other, the people who are have been the beneficiaries of this transfer have left unpaid bills all over the shop. So yes, Philip Larkin was right: your parents did fk you up. As for how you let them, well come to that.In a nutshell, theyve shafted you financially. Its a depressingly familiar list: property, pensions, the NHS, further education, student debt, the national debt and so on. They built a giant, towering pyramid scheme to ensure they had lovely lives and theyre now spending their gold-plated pensions on exotic holidays; the boom in the cruise industryover the last decade is no accident.Meanwhile, you live in a tiny shared rented flat in Zone 4, working in a job whose wages are so meagre it may as well be in internship. Worries about your own pension dont really come into it: youre more concerned about next months rent which, of course, is funding some 57-year olds third buy to-let-investment. In seven years time, when youll be finally earning the national average wage, you can start paying off that £40k of student debt you racked up for that useless degree that Tony Blair told you would be your passport to the good life.Its hardly surprising that Russell Brand is calling for revolution. Brand is clearly on to something because recently there has been a concerted effort to rebrand him (sorry) as a nincompoop and his followers as naïve. For what its worth, I do think hes a bit of a fool. However, to write him off is also naïve. In hisexcellent analysis in the FT, Michael Skapinker notes that Brand has more Twitter followers than the FT and Wall Street Journal combined, and concludes [His] revolution is not going to happen, but many of his criticisms resonate and not just with his credulous fans.However, while I can sort of understand Brand as a muddled messiah for the dispossessed, I disagree emphatically with all his claptrap about not voting. Not voting has got us where we are today. Not voting enabled this great intergenerational heist to take place.In 1964, over 70% of all age groups voted and the difference in turnout between 18-24 year olds and those over 65 was negligible. By 2005, 75% of the 65 plus age group was still voting but the figure for 18-24 year olds had fallen to 38%. Things picked up a bit in the 2010 election as they tend to in kick the bums out elections. But even so, the political calculus is clear. Target your policies at the grannies and youll get one and half or two votes for every vote you get from the kids. As our corporate chum the meerkat says: Simples.So, Brand doesnt have to tell the kids not to vote. Theyre already not voting. And if you dont vote and the young have been not voting in greater numbers since the early 90s - then politicians will aim their policies at those who do. As a 20-something man, you might think that Cameron and Osborne are a kind Batman and Robin of entitled incompetence. But your granny probably thinks theyre nice, presentable young men.The rise of Britains gerontocracy correlates pretty well with the decline of the youth vote. Blair may have cruised in on a youth ticket, but thereafter the young vote dwindled sharply. So, as a man who knew which side his ballot paper was buttered, Blair saw no reason to reverse any of the policies which were already allowing the old to steal the family silver. As for the Tories, they have always favoured the older and the wealthier and, increasingly the older are the wealthier.Were all becoming depressingly familiar with the results of these policies. The single worst (and most easily grasped) problem is housing. Our housing market has become an in-and-out club. If youre over 50, in addition to your primary residence, you may well own a couple of buy-to-lets which will augment your already well-upholstered pension. If youre under 30, youre screwed.If youre under 30 in London, youre super-screwed. Youll be in your 40s before youve saved enough to buy a dump in Catford. And even then its likely that youll be outbid by a buy-to-let investor or, increasingly and tragically, refused a mortgage because youre too old.A long list of policies across three very different governments has got us here. The one off sale of council houses to make us all Tories in the 1980s - over two million homes that went cheap, often criminally cheap. The bottom three rungs cut off the ladder, the proceeds pocketed and the houses never replaced. Even so, property was still cheap back then and if the housing market was anything like a free market, we might still be alright.However, for all their devotion to the free market, our leaders have shown no interest in allowing the housing market to function this way. Rather, each year, we build a tiny fraction of what is needed ensuring prices march endlessly upwards. We have no coherent national housing plan. Our planning system is a mess. We have artificially low interest rates. We sell homes off-plan to foreign investors and dont build enough to house the immigrants who are vital to our economy. The result is an cruelly dysfunctional market and one which works brilliantly for your parents.In tandem with this, over the last few years weve done a great job of increasing the wage gap between age groups. Guess who low wages hurt? Not people in their 50s and 60s. In fact, they actually help older people as they as more likely to be investors and employers. So, theres no house for you, but the people who vote can afford a cleaner for their holiday home.Housing is the most pressing problem. But theres plenty more in the pipeline. In their book, The Jilted Generation, Shiv Malik and Ed Howker point out that this is the funding shortfall in the UK state pension scheme is £2.2 trillion. Thats 2.2 million million or about £74,000 per head of the UKs working population. It is largely a result of people living longer and the problem was known in the late 90s. The obvious solution would have been to adjust NI contributions upwards.Did it happen? Would your folks have voted for a someone whod do that? Ha ha ha ha.You might assume that people pay for their own state pensions. They dont. The UK operates whats known as a Pay as You Go Scheme. There is no giant pension pot. Your NI contributions pay directly for the pensions of todays retirees. Obviously this system worked brilliantly for the boomers (loads of workers, few pensioners who died quickly). Equally obviously it is going to suck beyond belief for todays 20 somethings. You are going to pay and pay and pay as you go.As if this wasnt enough, there are plenty of other black clouds on the horizon. The first is the insane demands that ageing boomers will place on the NHS. The only way for our cherished health service to continue will be for you to pay a lot more tax and work even longer. Congratulations: your retirement age has just been upped from 85 to 90. We can also look forward to the PFI chickens coming home to roost, the continued destruction of social mobility, the last nails in the coffin of job security, and the ever greater concentration of wealth upwards... before we get on to the vast environmental legacies left to us by those who will never experience their effects.OK, but its reasonable to ask, could it have been different? Actually it could. Weve already seen that the boomers could have funded their own state pensions rather than leaving the tab for their kids. But another example of what could have been lies across the North Sea. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund worth about $900 billion, which comes from states cut of its North Sea Oil bonanza. It was founded in the 1990s, with a view to providing things like pensions and healthcare when the oil runs dry. Already the income from the fund (not the capital) makes a substantial contribution to Norwegian government spending.Perhaps you can think of another country that had a North Sea Oil bonanza... I know that Britain has 13 times the population of Norway. But even so, $900bn would come in very handy. We did talk about setting up a fund as long ago as the 70s, but instead your parents voted for governments who pissed it up the wall on tax breaks which of course, benefit those who are wealthier and older disproportionately. We did the same with the proceeds of our various privatisations. I dunno, perhaps your folks took two skiing holidays that year.Our housing crisis was even more avoidable. All we had to do was build the number of houses the market needed. We used to be very good at this. But here, a vipers nest of vested interests, profiteering, NIMBYism and pandering to equity rich voters for whom mortgages payments are a distant memory means nothing is done. Sure, the government talks the talk no-one wants to appear mean to cute 22 year olds but theres no action. Polices to help the young - such regulating the rental sector properly or a national housing plan gather digital dust on think tank hard drives.For what its worth, I dont think this was intentional. Again Larkin has it right: They may not mean to [f-ck you up], but they do. Its more a case of wilful ignorance.The boomers spent their whole lives believing they could have everything now and they voted for politicians who told them this was true. Its that winning democratic mix of low-information voters and politicians willing to exploit their ignorance. But at least they voted.So, by all means agree with Russell Brand when he tells you the system has screwed you. Like him on Facebook and retweet his polysyllabic but baffling bon mots. But for Gods sake learn a little bit about how the system works too. You need to do more than take 30 seconds out of Facebooking your mates in Thailand to sign an online petition or upvote a video. Social medias great for getting Dapper Laughs kicked off ITV2, but not so good for influencing long term policy.You need to get involved and you need to vote. This is the only way politics will reflect your views and needs. And you need to do this now because the demographics are stacked against you. Every year there are more and more old people. If you dont change things soon, the status quo that serves you so poorly and them so well will be locked in for a generation.Finally, if really you think you cant change anything by voting, youre very, very wrong. Had you turned out at the same level as your parents in the last election, you could have changed the result.Its unlikely youd have won it for Labour (even though you skew heavily left) but you might have made it impossible for Cameron to form the coalition thats done so many things you hate. If you really think thats nothing, then you deserve to be robbed blind by your parents.

[Armchair Bob]

So in summary. Selfish auld khunts screw up the UK.

Young Scots decide they want out.

Selfish auld khunts screw that up too...

Plenty retired folk move to Scotland. Do we need to redress the imbalance by persuading the yoof to relocate too?

[deecie]

Depressingly true.

[thplinth]

So we are supposed to believe that the country is ed because old people are collecting and enjoying pensions that they paid into their whole life?

No mention of the actuaries who said defined benefit pension schemes were affordable then?

No mention of Gordon Brown raiding the pensions then?

No mention of massive frauds in the city that caused the financial crisis then?

Or corrupt political leaders selling us out to their big corporate donors?

No mention of the disastrous wars for the neocons all based on lies and carried by newspapers like the Torygraph?

No apparently we should blame each other. How very convenient.

[phart]

So we are supposed to believe that the country is ed because old people are collecting and enjoying pensions that they paid into their whole life?

No mention of the actuaries who said defined benefit pension schemes were affordable then?

No mention of Gordon Brown raiding the pensions then?

No mention of massive frauds in the city that caused the financial crisis then?

Or corrupt political leaders selling us out to their big corporate donors?

No mention of the disastrous wars for the neocons all based on lies and carried by newspapers like the Torygraph?

No apparently we should blame each other. How very convenient.

Selling of gold to save Goldman Sachs from going bust in the short market.

Loads of pointless vanity programmes

Pouring tonnes of money into the system devaluing it immensely.

Keep the plebs blaming each other, seems a good way to go.

[deecie]

^^

Well done on completely missing the point with both of your logins.

[teecee-]

Always considered us that started work in the 70s, the "Golden Generation".

Relatively numerous jobs, compulsory cheap pensions and house prices about 3 times joint salary.

Grants for education and no need for excessive loans.

We are now in the position to retire or work part time, have small mortgages or none and enjoy trips abroad.

The geriatric tartan army thrives with more joining each trip. You will recognise us- we are the ones always at

the bar [ and the toilet].

[Charlie Endell]

Always considered us that started work in the 70s, the "Golden Generation".

Relatively numerous jobs, compulsory cheap pensions and house prices about 3 times joint salary.

Grants for education and no need for excessive loans.

We are now in the position to retire or work part time, have small mortgages or none and enjoy trips abroad.

The geriatric tartan army thrives with more joining each trip. You will recognise us- we are the ones always at

the bar [ and the toilet].

Interest rates were pretty nasty though, maybe not so much in the '70s, but certainly in the '80s.

[wheres the pies]

Interest rates were pretty nasty though, maybe not so much in the '70s, but certainly in the '80s.

aye remember it well 1989 interest a whopping 16 percent bought my first ever property then

[phart]

^^

Well done on completely missing the point with both of your logins.

Shouldn't you be on trip advisor "reviewing" train timetables and airport lounges instead of trying to derail a discussion on our current social-economic footing by parroting false claims from the H-Team?

Of course you'd agree with Mr Proud , you have the same interests here's one of his other insightful articles.

Cinemas: they just don't make 'em like they used to It's been a disappointing summer for box-office takings, but it's not because the movies are bad, says Alex Proud, it's because modern cinemas are so terrible

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11077909/Cinemas-they-just-dont-make-em-like-they-used-to.html

"..Back then, our notions about what constituted normal sex were largely formed from underwear catalogues, the odd cherished copy of Razzle and whatever embellished half-truths our elder siblings passed on to us. Usually we’d attempt to put these misconceptions into action on our long-suffering girlfriends at the local cinema. And, usually we’d never get much further than a couple of clumsy remedial snogs after which we’d be rebuffed by the the girls who, in any case, were thinking of of dumping us for a glamorous older man who drove a Capri"

Amazing insight into an important aspect of life

Edited November 18, 2014 by phart

[BremnerLorimerGray]

Shouldn't you be on trip advisor "reviewing" train timetables and airport lounges instead of trying to derail a discussion on our current social-economic footing by parroting false claims from the H-Team?

Of course you'd agree with Mr Proud , you have the same interests here's one of his other insightful articles.

Cinemas: they just don't make 'em like they used to It's been a disappointing summer for box-office takings, but it's not because the movies are bad, says Alex Proud, it's because modern cinemas are so terrible

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11077909/Cinemas-they-just-dont-make-em-like-they-used-to.html

"..Back then, our notions about what constituted normal sex were largely formed from underwear catalogues, the odd cherished copy of Razzle and whatever embellished half-truths our elder siblings passed on to us. Usually we’d attempt to put these misconceptions into action on our long-suffering girlfriends at the local cinema. And, usually we’d never get much further than a couple of clumsy remedial snogs after which we’d be rebuffed by the the girls who, in any case, were thinking of of dumping us for a glamorous older man who drove a Capri"

Amazing insight into an important aspect of life

Who could resist a man in a Capri? or an MKII RS2000, Granada, Cortina or any car featured in the Professionals....

[deecie]

Shouldn't you be on trip advisor "reviewing" train timetables and airport lounges instead of trying to derail a discussion on our current social-economic footing by parroting false claims from the H-Team?

Standard utter shite as expected from you.

You do realise what the purpose of the TAMB is?

It's not here for people with sweet all interest in Scottish Football to pretend they are some sort of intellectual.

[Lamia]

Can someone post a link to the article to save me trying to find it please?

[thplinth]

I expect Mr Proud gained his deep and profound insights to the problems facing the yoof and whose fault it is when he was a pupil at Tonbridge School...

Tonbridge School is an independent day and boarding school for boys in Tonbridge, Kent, England, founded in 1553 by Sir Andrew Judd (sometimes spelled Judde). It is a member of the Eton Group, and has close links with the Worshipful Company of Skinners, one of the oldest London livery companies. It is a public school in the British sense of the term.

There are currently around 800 boys in the school, aged between 13 and 18. The school occupies a site of 150 acres (607,000 m²) on the edge of Tonbridge, and is largely self-contained, though the boarding and day houses are spread through the town. Since its foundation the school has been rebuilt twice on the original site. Tonbridge's fees are among the highest of all the independent schools in Britain in terms of Boarding, at £35,163 per year, compared to Eton's £34,434 or Harrow's £34,590.^[1][2][3]

[Lamia]

I expect Mr Proud gained his deep and profound insights to the problems facing the yoof and whose fault it is when he was a pupil at Tonbridge School...

Tonbridge School is an independent day and boarding school for boys in Tonbridge, Kent, England, founded in 1553 by Sir Andrew Judd (sometimes spelled Judde). It is a member of the Eton Group, and has close links with the Worshipful Company of Skinners, one of the oldest London livery companies. It is a public school in the British sense of the term.

There are currently around 800 boys in the school, aged between 13 and 18. The school occupies a site of 150 acres (607,000 m²) on the edge of Tonbridge, and is largely self-contained, though the boarding and day houses are spread through the town. Since its foundation the school has been rebuilt twice on the original site. Tonbridge's fees are among the highest of all the independent schools in Britain in terms of Boarding, at £35,163 per year, compared to Eton's £34,434 or Harrow's £34,590.^[1][2][3]

You may disagree with some of the article but there are plenty of accuracies in it and I fail to see why we should dismiss his views just because of the school he went to.

[phart]

Standard utter shite as expected from you.

You do realise what the purpose of the TAMB is?

It's not here for people with sweet all interest in Scottish Football to pretend they are some sort of intellectual.

Yeah i was discussing something that someone posted, then you came along and started going on about me having two sign ons. Probably for the egregious reason i disagreed with you on the interpretation of the article, you then decided to discuss me and not the article.

If you want to set yourself up as the self-appointed arbiter of who can use the board or who's an "Authentic Scotland Fan" then that's your business, i'm not going to indulge you in your roleplay though, so the next time put on your sheriffs badge and start role-playing you're the board administrator don't get upset folk don't take it as seriously as you.

The original post was about the reasons for our current socio-economic position , not about someone who posts on the board and their log ins or how authentic their claim to be a Scotland fan is. Perhaps we can get back to that as opposed to discussing me, as interesting a subject as it is.

As someone once said

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

P.S have we got further to finding out what the point is? Considering it was the keystone to the whole argument in the first place.

Edited November 18, 2014 by phart

[phart]

You may disagree with some of the article but there are plenty of accuracies in it and I fail to see why we should dismiss his views just because of the school he went to.

It's a reason for the problem not THE reason.

[thplinth]

You may disagree with some of the article but there are plenty of accuracies in it and I fail to see why we should dismiss his views just because of the school he went to.

Did someone ask you to dismiss his views? I am providing more information not taking any away.

As he is essentially blaming one generation for the woes of another while ignoring the ruling elite I think it worthwhile looking at his own background. Turns out he went to the most expensive elite Toff school in the entire country.

[deecie]

P.S have we got further to finding out what the point is? Considering it was the keystone to the whole argument in the first place.

I certainly have no idea what the point of you posting on this board is.

But that's something for you to figure out, not me.

[phart]

But that's something for you to figure out, not me.

Correct, so now you can stop bleating and whining about it.

[deecie]

Correct, so now you can stop bleating and whining about it.

I can, but I won't.

[phart]

I can, but I won't.

You may now have the last word as a gift from me.

Edited November 18, 2014 by phart

[brant grebner]

I take it this thread isnae about an "absolve-them-it-was-just-the-cabinet-letting-off-steam" Operation Midland press release statement from CCHQ?

[scotlad]

Yeah i was discussing something that someone posted, then you came along and started going on about me having two sign ons. Probably for the egregious reason i disagreed with you on the interpretation of the article, you then decided to discuss me and not the article.

If you want to set yourself up as the self-appointed arbiter of who can use the board or who's an "Authentic Scotland Fan" then that's your business, i'm not going to indulge you in your roleplay though, so the next time put on your sheriffs badge and start role-playing you're the board administrator don't get upset folk don't take it as seriously as you.

The original post was about the reasons for our current socio-economic position , not about someone who posts on the board and their log ins or how authentic their claim to be a Scotland fan is. Perhaps we can get back to that as opposed to discussing me, as interesting a subject as it is.

As someone once said

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

P.S have we got further to finding out what the point is? Considering it was the keystone to the whole argument in the first place.

Eleanor Roosevelt, was it not?

[brant grebner]

Eleanor Roosevelt, was it not?

She had a rubbish haircut.