We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
I'm afraid that if you asked the over 40s whether they supported the monarchy when they were 21 years old, a very good number would say No. It can seem that the monarchy grows on one with age.
People always get more conservative as they age. The Tories have always polled better with over 65s than under 25s and Labour have always polled better with under 25s than over 65s.
Though note on this poll the monarchy even leads with under 25s
Probably because, for them, the Royal Family compares favourably with the Tory party.
I'm afraid that if you asked the over 40s whether they supported the monarchy when they were 21 years old, a very good number would say No. It can seem that the monarchy grows on one with age.
People always get more conservative as they age. The Tories have always polled better with over 65s than under 25s and Labour have always polled better with under 25s than over 65s.
Though note on this poll the monarchy even leads with under 25s
I think you are correct. After all, you have now abandoned your youthful dalliance with Plaid Cymru.
Hah - just spotted this gem in a Guardian article about the week ahead:
"The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis, and doctor and dentist appointments."
SeaShantyIrish2 asked: "Why do you write "Native Americans" in quotes?" Because that's how they were described at Wiki -- and I was too lazy to try to find out their actual tribe or tribes.
You could make the argument that does democracy even work properly when a large group of people many who have been out of the workforce for 20 to 30 years consistently swing elections
Depends whether you value wisdom and experience or not.
My experience is the wisdom of most old people is severely limited. They have never fought in wars and have experienced 60 to 70 years of rising prosperity fot thrmselves...that colours their outlook...most still think property prices are as cheap as the 70s
Your experience is extremely limited full stop and hampered further by what your moscow masters allow you to post. All that needs to be said I feel
I'm afraid that if you asked the over 40s whether they supported the monarchy when they were 21 years old, a very good number would say No. It can seem that the monarchy grows on one with age.
People always get more conservative as they age. The Tories have always polled better with over 65s than under 25s and Labour have always polled better with under 25s than over 65s.
Though note on this poll the monarchy even leads with under 25s
People become more invested in conserving the "system" if they feel they have a fair share of it and want to protect it.
Generally that will mean people get more politically conservative as they age, but it is far from given if large parts of future generations are excluded from wealth sharing.
nico679 wonders why marijuana has been legalized in many American states. Three reasons occur to me: As Tom Wolfe explained in his curious collection, "In Our Time", too many children of wealthy people kept getting busted. (pp. 5-6)
And our journalists have been reluctant to describe the scientific findings on its ill effects. (As a group, they are much less diverse than journalists in the UK, as far as I can tell. There are, for example, no newspapers equivalent to your Telegraph and Daily Mail, for instance.)
And then there are somewhat stronger libertarian beliefs here.
Plus fact (others may challenge this, but believe it is true) that legalization of marijuana in WA State has DECREASED access to pot by minors, while providing tax revenues to state and local governments, and legal business opportunities, for example in many agricultural communities. PLUS product sold legally is subject to regulation AND testing, to benefit of consumers and others indirectly affected.
Though I am personally biased!
This is a topic I just can’t make my mind up about.
The pro legalisation bit of my brain says something along the lines above. In alcohol terms it’s like there’s a load of home distilled meths adulterated spirit being sold illegally and people are dying of it, so legalise and everyone will be sipping wine in pavement cafes.
The abolitionist in me says there are a lot of young people who don’t touch the stuff now because they’re terrified of being caught, but they’d happily take it if it were legal.
The trouble is meths is as legal as anything else in some states and still freely available on the black market in others.
As a historically disaffected colonial, had to read that twice to figure it out.
Because on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) we never call methylated spirits "meths". Mostly because we mainly refer to the stuff as "wood alcohol" and "denatured alchohol.
When you say "meths" I immediately think of "meth" = methamphetamine. Which is WAY bigger problem in US than people drinking wood alcohol.
THAT vice reached it's peak in America, I believe, in 1920s and 1930s, as unintended consequence of Prohibition, and kept going after Repeal by the Depression.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Forgoing an iphone won't get you very far. Nor will not going on holidays. Young people may not be scrimping and saving religiously, but prices should still not be as out of reach as they are.
No, I agree the prices are too high. But if you already have a phone, why get a new one? It’s a completely different mindset.
A great many will be on contracts such that replacing the phone will cost them no more or even less than their current one when the contract is up for renewal.
I don't think a general level of profligacy can be that significant a factor. Certainly the younger people i know are keen on going to festivals and European getaways, but even without those they'd be at the parents house or struggling with rent. The rise is sufficiently high that personal level expenses are not that big a dent, the ratio MightyAlex talks about.
I think if anything the phone thing can show how misconceptions can work in reverse. Occasionally people have commented on refugees/migrants having smartphones as if that demonstrates a lack of desperation in many of their situations, when for one thing a phone would be a pretty important thing to have with you, and they are honestly not that expensive.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Tell me about it, Turbo.
I am currently archiving my Dad's war letters. I wish I could reproduce some of them here - jaw-dropping.
Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".
It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.
And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )
From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)
Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.
Except it's not really illegal in the UK, is it? If you want to buy some, anyone under the age of 25 will be able to sort you out in about 15 minutes or failing that, the dark web will deliver some to your door in 48 hours. And the police will do nothing about it. Around 2.6m people in the UK use marijuana (I'm not one of them!) in any given year, for which there are approximately 15,000 prosecutions. Compare that to the 85,000 people prosecuted annually for drink driving (never mind drunk and disorderly, and all manner of other violence in which alcohol is involved).
It may be de jure illegal, but for anyone over the age of 13, marijuana is de facto as easy (and consequence free) - as getting a drink or cigarettes.
By that reasoning most things are legal in the uk, I certainly know people who will deliver within a couple of hours ....cocaine....heroin...mdma....ketamine...cannabis....pistols and uzi's
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Forgoing an iphone won't get you very far. Nor will not going on holidays. Young people may not be scrimping and saving religiously, but prices should still not be as out of reach as they are.
Inflation is ultra situational. In real terms taking home a bottle of modest wine is loads cheaper than it once was (though not in a wine bar), and loads of gadgetry is cheaper. But none of that makes up for the fact that the modest house you would rather like is X zillion pounds more than you can afford.
In a saner world this would lead far more people to live where house prices are affordable mostly (including much of the north of England). But maybe not.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
This might be the case in some places (London?) but it’s not everywhere. Sometimes people aim too high. Perhaps a flat or smaller house will do to start?
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Forgoing an iphone won't get you very far. Nor will not going on holidays. Young people may not be scrimping and saving religiously, but prices should still not be as out of reach as they are.
Inflation is ultra situational. In real terms taking home a bottle of modest wine is loads cheaper than it once was (though not in a wine bar), and loads of gadgetry is cheaper. But none of that makes up for the fact that the modest house you would rather like is X zillion pounds more than you can afford.
In a saner world this would lead far more people to live where house prices are affordable mostly (including much of the north of England). But maybe not.
The situational part is a good point to bear in mind. I know when looking at much more historical items it can be very hard to work out, when a dress for a noble might cost what would feed someone else for a year.
Hah - just spotted this gem in a Guardian article about the week ahead:
"The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis, and doctor and dentist appointments."
Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".
It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.
And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )
From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)
Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.
Except it's not really illegal in the UK, is it? If you want to buy some, anyone under the age of 25 will be able to sort you out in about 15 minutes or failing that, the dark web will deliver some to your door in 48 hours. And the police will do nothing about it. Around 2.6m people in the UK use marijuana (I'm not one of them!) in any given year, for which there are approximately 15,000 prosecutions. Compare that to the 85,000 people prosecuted annually for drink driving (never mind drunk and disorderly, and all manner of other violence in which alcohol is involved).
It may be de jure illegal, but for anyone over the age of 13, marijuana is de facto as easy (and consequence free) - as getting a drink or cigarettes.
By that reasoning most things are legal in the uk, I certainly know people who will deliver within a couple of hours ....cocaine....heroin...mdma....ketamine...cannabis....pistols and uzi's
The question is how likely you are to be prosecuted for it.
Pistols and uzis, very likely. Cannabis, almost certainly not. Witness multiple videos of people smoking a joint in front of the rozzers at notting hill carnival and the coppers doing nothing about it. Clearly, they would do something if an uzi was being waved about, and most likely intervene if the person was shooting up too.
The police turn a complete blind eye to cannabis, and (having had friends who have been picked up while possessing class As, then let go) they also turn a blind eye to possession of most other substances so long as you are polite and cooperative and not causing anyone any bother. It is a de facto decriminalization unless you are a major dealer or being disorderly. The trouble is, it leaves control of the drugs (and strength and purity) in the hands of the gangs.
Hah - just spotted this gem in a Guardian article about the week ahead:
"The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis, and doctor and dentist appointments."
Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".
It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.
And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )
From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)
Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.
Except it's not really illegal in the UK, is it? If you want to buy some, anyone under the age of 25 will be able to sort you out in about 15 minutes or failing that, the dark web will deliver some to your door in 48 hours. And the police will do nothing about it. Around 2.6m people in the UK use marijuana (I'm not one of them!) in any given year, for which there are approximately 15,000 prosecutions. Compare that to the 85,000 people prosecuted annually for drink driving (never mind drunk and disorderly, and all manner of other violence in which alcohol is involved).
It may be de jure illegal, but for anyone over the age of 13, marijuana is de facto as easy (and consequence free) - as getting a drink or cigarettes.
By that reasoning most things are legal in the uk, I certainly know people who will deliver within a couple of hours ....cocaine....heroin...mdma....ketamine...cannabis....pistols and uzi's
But try getting bog roll during lockdown? No chance.
Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".
It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.
And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )
From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)
Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.
Except it's not really illegal in the UK, is it? If you want to buy some, anyone under the age of 25 will be able to sort you out in about 15 minutes or failing that, the dark web will deliver some to your door in 48 hours. And the police will do nothing about it. Around 2.6m people in the UK use marijuana (I'm not one of them!) in any given year, for which there are approximately 15,000 prosecutions. Compare that to the 85,000 people prosecuted annually for drink driving (never mind drunk and disorderly, and all manner of other violence in which alcohol is involved).
It may be de jure illegal, but for anyone over the age of 13, marijuana is de facto as easy (and consequence free) - as getting a drink or cigarettes.
By that reasoning most things are legal in the uk, I certainly know people who will deliver within a couple of hours ....cocaine....heroin...mdma....ketamine...cannabis....pistols and uzi's
The question is how likely you are to be prosecuted for it.
Pistols and uzis, very likely. Cannabis, almost certainly not. Witness multiple videos of people smoking a joint in front of the rozzers at notting hill carnival and the coppers doing nothing about it. Clearly, they would do something if an uzi was being waved about, and most likely intervene if the person was shooting up too.
The police turn a complete blind eye to cannabis, and (having had friends who have been picked up while possessing class As, then let go) they also turn a blind eye to possession of most other substances so long as you are polite and cooperative and not causing anyone any bother. It is a de facto decriminalization unless you are a major dealer or being disorderly. The trouble is, it leaves control of the drugs (and strength and purity) in the hands of the gangs.
pistols and uzis' very unlikely if you dont use them and keep them for defence only and dont carry them round. Been caught by police lots in possession but never been prosecuted. I agree totally with legalize and take it out the hands of gangs
Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".
It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.
And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )
From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)
Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.
Except it's not really illegal in the UK, is it? If you want to buy some, anyone under the age of 25 will be able to sort you out in about 15 minutes or failing that, the dark web will deliver some to your door in 48 hours. And the police will do nothing about it. Around 2.6m people in the UK use marijuana (I'm not one of them!) in any given year, for which there are approximately 15,000 prosecutions. Compare that to the 85,000 people prosecuted annually for drink driving (never mind drunk and disorderly, and all manner of other violence in which alcohol is involved).
It may be de jure illegal, but for anyone over the age of 13, marijuana is de facto as easy (and consequence free) - as getting a drink or cigarettes.
By that reasoning most things are legal in the uk, I certainly know people who will deliver within a couple of hours ....cocaine....heroin...mdma....ketamine...cannabis....pistols and uzi's
But try getting bog roll during lockdown? No chance.
Never had a problem....yes supermarkets destocked guess what my local corner shop never seemed to lack supply....but then most people only know their local supermarket
I'm afraid that if you asked the over 40s whether they supported the monarchy when they were 21 years old, a very good number would say No. It can seem that the monarchy grows on one with age.
People always get more conservative as they age. The Tories have always polled better with over 65s than under 25s and Labour have always polled better with under 25s than over 65s.
Though note on this poll the monarchy even leads with under 25s
'People always get more conservative'? I agree there is a tendency but not always. I didn't. I went in the reverse direction as did others I know. Usually would be a more accurate word than always.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
This might be the case in some places (London?) but it’s not everywhere. Sometimes people aim too high. Perhaps a flat or smaller house will do to start?
I agree. But compared to 50 years ago everything has gone up relative to average incomes.
I'm afraid that if you asked the over 40s whether they supported the monarchy when they were 21 years old, a very good number would say No. It can seem that the monarchy grows on one with age.
People always get more conservative as they age. The Tories have always polled better with over 65s than under 25s and Labour have always polled better with under 25s than over 65s.
Though note on this poll the monarchy even leads with under 25s
People become more invested in conserving the "system" if they feel they have a fair share of it and want to protect it.
Generally that will mean people get more politically conservative as they age, but it is far from given if large parts of future generations are excluded from wealth sharing.
Will the fact that poor people, as well as being less likely to vote Conservative, are likely to die younger, not mean that the remaining elderly people are more likely to vote Conservative?
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
This might be the case in some places (London?) but it’s not everywhere. Sometimes people aim too high. Perhaps a flat or smaller house will do to start?
I agree. But compared to 50 years ago everything has gone up relative to average incomes.
There has been a cost of living crisis for years for those on minimum wage jobs. No one was crying about it to till it hit the middle classes as it does now. We had a cost of living crisis for many while we were in the EU, we still have one but maybe when remainer c**ts are claiming people voted against there interests they should remember that a lot of those poor people saw their wages drop year after year in the eu compared to costs they had to pay....they voted to change in the hope things might get better
Well it won’t be Philip Schoffield. He showed his true colours with that spurious list of names on Breakfast TV, and now thinking he can jump the queue ahead the public.
In the 70s nights out were cheaper and property much cheaper two of the key determinants of happiness. Yes electronic gadgets were more expensive but thete werent many of those anyway..perhaps a little bw tv
Hah - just spotted this gem in a Guardian article about the week ahead:
"The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis, and doctor and dentist appointments."
I don't think that is a case for an Oxford comma. Sorry to be pedantic.
The sentence still makes sense as:
The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis and doctor and dentist appointments.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
And when I were a lad, it was proper beer, not the piss water they serve these days. When I were a lad, you could drink ten pints, go to the pictures, buy fish and chips and buy a house, and still have change from a fiver.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
Yes but people are single for longer too now. You seriously think a single mid 20s woman is not going to go out for 6 months...be realistic
As has been made repeatedly clear, Mr Fullbrook is committed to and complies with all laws and regulations in any jurisdiction in which he works and is confident that he has done so in this matter.
Not his fault, but talking about how you comply with al llaws and jurisditions just makes me think of giant corporations insisting they pay all taxes in all jurisdictions to the extent the law allows (as code for how they fiddle their taxes).
Well it won’t be Philip Schoffield. He showed his true colours with that spurious list of names on Breakfast TV, and now thinking he can jump the queue ahead the public.
"I wonder who the last person in The Queue is."
I will be very disappointed if it is not @Leon just jetted back from Portugal still smattered in sun cream and with a glass of something white and cold still in his hand.
Well it won’t be Philip Schoffield. He showed his true colours with that spurious list of names on Breakfast TV, and now thinking he can jump the queue ahead the public.
"I wonder who the last person in The Queue is."
I will be very disappointed if it is not @Leon just jetted back from Portugal still smattered in sun cream and with a glass of something white and cold still in his hand.
It won’t still be cold by the time he reaches Westminster Hall.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
By the way ive talked to my parents and they can confirm nights out were much cheaper in the 70s. Also in real terms petrol was also much cheaper. Not only that before the breathalyser people used to drive to country pubs have 4 or 5 pints then drive back...much more freedom
Well it won’t be Philip Schoffield. He showed his true colours with that spurious list of names on Breakfast TV, and now thinking he can jump the queue ahead the public.
"I wonder who the last person in The Queue is."
I will be very disappointed if it is not @Leon just jetted back from Portugal still smattered in sun cream and with a glass of something white and cold still in his hand.
@Leon wont be last. His stalker, a notorious hack of ghastly airport trash but the name of Sean Thomas will be there with him too.
Hah - just spotted this gem in a Guardian article about the week ahead:
"The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis, and doctor and dentist appointments."
I don't think that is a case for an Oxford comma. Sorry to be pedantic.
The sentence still makes sense as:
The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis and doctor and dentist appointments.
The sentence makes perfect sense with and without, but the Oxford comma helps with rhythm and it also separates the four parts of the plan nicely. Not to use one would be a bit perverse.
Again what im getting at is the boomers seem dazxled by cheap electronic gadgets which really add little to life and dont see the many ways in which things have deteriorated....i agree foreign travel is an exception but that could change in the coming years
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
I don't know why you keep focusing on the phone so much.
Sure, saving up is easier if you don't go out so often, but 'easier' doesn't mean much if it is still very hard, and indeed harder than for previous generations. If not going out three times a week won't make much progress towards a deposit one can understand why the temptation is to enjoy it instead. If I hadn't bought a KFC this morning I could have saved a tenner this week, but that wouldn't be meaningful.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
I don't know why you keep focusing on the phone so much.
Sure, saving up is easier if you don't go out so often, but 'easier' doesn't mean much if it is still very hard, and indeed harder than for previous generations. If not going out three times a week won't make much progress towards a deposit one can understand why the temptation is to enjoy it instead. If I hadn't bought a KFC this morning I could have saved a tenner this week, but that wouldn't be meaningful.
Dont forget the extravagance of the twice weekly costa coffee...boomers love to get on their high horse about that
Sarawakreport says (based it says on court documents) that Fullbrook was part of consulting firm delegation that presented "Campaign Support Proposal for Governor Wanda Vazquez" to the Governor and her aides in Puerto Rico, along with the FBI's banker of interest.
Another difference...the workplace...much more relaxed in the 1979s with strong unions. Having a few at lunchtime and stumbling through the afternoon was perfectly acceptable....dont believe the boomers when they say how hard they had to work...they are lying
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
I don't know why you keep focusing on the phone so much.
Sure, saving up is easier if you don't go out so often, but 'easier' doesn't mean much if it is still very hard, and indeed harder than for previous generations. If not going out three times a week won't make much progress towards a deposit one can understand why the temptation is to enjoy it instead. If I hadn't bought a KFC this morning I could have saved a tenner this week, but that wouldn't be meaningful.
I don’t know, but it’s probably how i was brought up. I was taught to save up for things, and I guess I just don’t understand people who obsess about having the latest gadgets on the day they are released. I do ge5 the temptation to just enjoy life, but horse annoys me with his constant moaning about the older generations.
Well it won’t be Philip Schoffield. He showed his true colours with that spurious list of names on Breakfast TV, and now thinking he can jump the queue ahead the public.
"I wonder who the last person in The Queue is."
I will be very disappointed if it is not @Leon just jetted back from Portugal still smattered in sun cream and with a glass of something white and cold still in his hand.
It won’t still be cold by the time he reaches Westminster Hall.
I dunno, have you seen the overnight temperatures?
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
Yes but people are single for longer too now. You seriously think a single mid 20s woman is not going to go out for 6 months...be realistic
Youngsters are going out more than they did a few generations ago, but possibly less than they did 10 years ago. They stay at home and pick their phones. They're less social.
"When we asked 18-33-year-olds how often they go out to bars, restaurants, clubs, parties, or events, 40% said they go out only a few times a month or once a month, and 23% say they go out less than once a month or never, versus 37% who say they go out every week."
When I go on my morning run, I like to nod and say good morning to everyone because I am a social fellow, but as often as not anyone I pass who is aged under about 30 is more concerned with whatever sh*t is on their phone than to acknowledge another human being's presence in fleshspace.
Again what im getting at is the boomers seem dazxled by cheap electronic gadgets which really add little to life and dont see the many ways in which things have deteriorated....i agree foreign travel is an exception but that could change in the coming years
You try living through decades of b&w telly with 2 channels.
We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married
With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.
I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once. I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age. There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.
Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).
Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.
Did you miss the point about not going out for six months? It is difficult now, for sure. I was tremendously lucky to be given a deposit. But I sense a lot of people are not prepared to forgo going out for six months, and new iPhones is a symptom of this.
It makes little difference if its impossible to buy anyway. Why save for a house that is unaffordable now and set to become increasingly so (at a current rate of 15% a year)
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
The idea not going out for 6 months means you will be able to afford your first home is typical boomer logic. Also i believe when they were young beer was much cheaper in real terms. People in the 60s could have a full night out for a fiver...now that same night would likely cost close to £100. So even adjusting for inflation likely much cheaper
I’m not a boomer and I’m not claiming not going out for six months equals buying a house. The point is that our parents generation didn’t have it as easy as some imagine, and that maybe saving up is easier if you don’t go out three times a week and maybe you can make do with the phone you bought last year for a bit longer…
I don't know why you keep focusing on the phone so much.
Sure, saving up is easier if you don't go out so often, but 'easier' doesn't mean much if it is still very hard, and indeed harder than for previous generations. If not going out three times a week won't make much progress towards a deposit one can understand why the temptation is to enjoy it instead. If I hadn't bought a KFC this morning I could have saved a tenner this week, but that wouldn't be meaningful.
Dont forget the extravagance of the twice weekly costa coffee...boomers love to get on their high horse about that
Again what im getting at is the boomers seem dazxled by cheap electronic gadgets which really add little to life and dont see the many ways in which things have deteriorated....i agree foreign travel is an exception but that could change in the coming years
You try living through decades of b&w telly with 2 channels.
Yes but you had all that cheap beer and cheap petrol. And thrre were things called books
Well it won’t be Philip Schoffield. He showed his true colours with that spurious list of names on Breakfast TV, and now thinking he can jump the queue ahead the public.
"I wonder who the last person in The Queue is."
I will be very disappointed if it is not @Leon just jetted back from Portugal still smattered in sun cream and with a glass of something white and cold still in his hand.
It won’t still be cold by the time he reaches Westminster Hall.
I dunno, have you seen the overnight temperatures?
11 deg C. Positively palmy. When I was young etc etc.
Again what im getting at is the boomers seem dazxled by cheap electronic gadgets which really add little to life and dont see the many ways in which things have deteriorated....i agree foreign travel is an exception but that could change in the coming years
You try living through decades of b&w telly with 2 channels.
Yes but you had all that cheap beer and cheap petrol. And thrre were things called books
As has been made repeatedly clear, Mr Fullbrook is committed to and complies with all laws and regulations in any jurisdiction in which he works and is confident that he has done so in this matter.
Not his fault, but talking about how you comply with al llaws and jurisditions just makes me think of giant corporations insisting they pay all taxes in all jurisdictions to the extent the law allows (as code for how they fiddle their taxes).
Am assuming that element of Fullbrook's self-defense (if one is needed) is that he was unaware that the paymaster for the work done by consulting firm he was then associated with, was the banker?
OR that he was NOT aware the banker was prohibited by US law from bankrolling it? The same banker who apparently in the same room with Fullbrook, the Governor, etc., etc., etc.?
Yet another question: what are odds that this topic will come up, when Liz Truss meets with Joe Biden tomorrow?
My own guess is, slim to none. On the other hand, could well be there, in the back of both their minds when the meet on Sunday.
In the 70s nights out were cheaper and property much cheaper two of the key determinants of happiness. Yes electronic gadgets were more expensive but thete werent many of those anyway..perhaps a little bw tv
Comments
https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/
"The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis, and doctor and dentist appointments."
A perfect Oxford comma. Nice.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/17/liz-truss-week-ahead-queen-funeral-un-address-mini-budget
Generally that will mean people get more politically conservative as they age, but it is far from given if large parts of future generations are excluded from wealth sharing.
Because on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) we never call methylated spirits "meths". Mostly because we mainly refer to the stuff as "wood alcohol" and "denatured alchohol.
When you say "meths" I immediately think of "meth" = methamphetamine. Which is WAY bigger problem in US than people drinking wood alcohol.
THAT vice reached it's peak in America, I believe, in 1920s and 1930s, as unintended consequence of Prohibition, and kept going after Repeal by the Depression.
Your parents gained the stability of owning a home. Everything else might well have been shit. But that stability is denied to those on average incomes today.
I don't think a general level of profligacy can be that significant a factor. Certainly the younger people i know are keen on going to festivals and European getaways, but even without those they'd be at the parents house or struggling with rent. The rise is sufficiently high that personal level expenses are not that big a dent, the ratio MightyAlex talks about.
I think if anything the phone thing can show how misconceptions can work in reverse. Occasionally people have commented on refugees/migrants having smartphones as if that demonstrates a lack of desperation in many of their situations, when for one thing a phone would be a pretty important thing to have with you, and they are honestly not that expensive.
I am currently archiving my Dad's war letters. I wish I could reproduce some of them here - jaw-dropping.
In a saner world this would lead far more people to live where house prices are affordable mostly (including much of the north of England). But maybe not.
But failing (from Twitter)
"Is it true that Prince Andrew is to be appointed the Earl of Inverness? Does that make it OK to call him the Loch Ness Noncer?"
Pistols and uzis, very likely. Cannabis, almost certainly not. Witness multiple videos of people smoking a joint in front of the rozzers at notting hill carnival and the coppers doing nothing about it. Clearly, they would do something if an uzi was being waved about, and most likely intervene if the person was shooting up too.
The police turn a complete blind eye to cannabis, and (having had friends who have been picked up while possessing class As, then let go) they also turn a blind eye to possession of most other substances so long as you are polite and cooperative and not causing anyone any bother. It is a de facto decriminalization unless you are a major dealer or being disorderly. The trouble is, it leaves control of the drugs (and strength and purity) in the hands of the gangs.
This gives a overview for London and the regions:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-april-2022
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571205543078907904/photo/1
The sentence still makes sense as:
The health secretary, Thérèse Coffey, meanwhile, is expected to set out her four-step action plan to support the NHS this winter, focusing on ambulance delays, backlogs, the social care crisis and doctor and dentist appointments.
Not his fault, but talking about how you comply with al llaws and jurisditions just makes me think of giant corporations insisting they pay all taxes in all jurisdictions to the extent the law allows (as code for how they fiddle their taxes).
I will be very disappointed if it is not @Leon just jetted back from Portugal still smattered in sun cream and with a glass of something white and cold still in his hand.
Sure, saving up is easier if you don't go out so often, but 'easier' doesn't mean much if it is still very hard, and indeed harder than for previous generations. If not going out three times a week won't make much progress towards a deposit one can understand why the temptation is to enjoy it instead. If I hadn't bought a KFC this morning I could have saved a tenner this week, but that wouldn't be meaningful.
https://www.sarawakreport.org/2022/08/the-uks-lobbying-lordships-racket-has-to-stop/
This is from 2016 and it's for the USA but still:
"When we asked 18-33-year-olds how often they go out to bars, restaurants, clubs, parties, or events, 40% said they go out only a few times a month or once a month, and 23% say they go out less than once a month or never, versus 37% who say they go out every week."
When I go on my morning run, I like to nod and say good morning to everyone because I am a social fellow, but as often as not anyone I pass who is aged under about 30 is more concerned with whatever sh*t is on their phone than to acknowledge another human being's presence in fleshspace.
OR that he was NOT aware the banker was prohibited by US law from bankrolling it? The same banker who apparently in the same room with Fullbrook, the Governor, etc., etc., etc.?
Yet another question: what are odds that this topic will come up, when Liz Truss meets with Joe Biden tomorrow?
My own guess is, slim to none. On the other hand, could well be there, in the back of both their minds when the meet on Sunday.