Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Easy E wrote: To get to that post-war level of prosperity again, we just need to destroy all competition through carpet bombing the industrial heartlands and killing most of their work force age populations without them doing the same back to us. Just like what happened in WWII for the U.S.!
I actually think the Boomers and the economic growth and prosperity of that time was the historical exception and not the rule.
Indeed, also dont forget that the economic elite in the west was deadly afraid of the soviet union and what they symbolised. Which made them more willing to share the spoils of the economic growth with the rest of society, rather then keeping it to themselves which they have done historically.
I'm 32, working as a teacher in London, and like most teachers any age I cannot afford to buy a home. Many of my colleagues live month to month on their wages, in a job you'd think was traditionally middle class. Years and years of barely 1% pay increases (note 1% is the cap, you'll be lucky to get close in reality) while the cost of living soars means that we're all worse off. If must be crucifying being on minimum wages.
The state of housing has a lot to answer for in this country, and the lack of any regulation by successive governments, Tory and labour. Even in the early 2000s the housing market was spiralling out of control and Labour did nothing about it. End of boom and bust we were told, assuming the music would never stop and no one would be caught holding a ton of debt. Prices kept going up so it was safe for banks to keep giving bigger mortgages. When my parent say got a mortgage it was capped at 3-4 times their salary, but in the 2000s people were taking mortgages ten times their salary, they didn't have deposits so they took 100% mortgages, or even 105% mortgages to help buy furniture when they moved in.
When the economy took a nose dive nearly a decade ago interest rates were cut to the bone because suddenly all these people has colossal debts that if interest rates went up 0.5% they'd all be broken. Yet now, those rates serve to punish savers, and reward those taking on credit and debt. We should be ashamed of the debt mountain in this country, the average debt on credit cards not paid off each month averages in the thousands. A mix of the irresponsible or the unavoidable economic pressures people find themselves under. Where people can't get credit there are payday loans companies queuing up to lend at extortionate rates, these have only boomed in he last five years. Another 'industry' the government should aggressively regulate but doesn't because it says something about the state of living costs that people are this desperate.
Back to housing, the buy to let market is even more toxic. Those of us without many tens of thousands of pounds to cover a house deposit have to rent. Rent from those people who bought a second or third home with some vast mortgage, which we then are passed the monthly bill in rent. Renters today are paying so much because they're paying someone else's huge mortgage all because they don't have the deposit to start their own home and start their own mortgage, and now never will because the costs of living and rent take up all their money every month meaning they cannot save. Yet people living at home well into their 30s are treated like failures in life. Last time this culture was normal was the Victorian era, when several generations were trapped under he same roof.
As a country we now can't afford to have a housing market crash because wealthy people in the UK and foreign investors will hoover up all the cheap housing stock and screw the public into the ground. Because the government won't regulate the market for the public good.
What we need in the UK is a house building programme, rent controls and control over housing sales, so that houses become primarily people's homes putting a secure roof over their head, instead of money spinners for a wealthy few that become financial prisons for those in them.
Easy E wrote: To get to that post-war level of prosperity again, we just need to destroy all competition through carpet bombing the industrial heartlands and killing most of their work force age populations without them doing the same back to us. Just like what happened in WWII for the U.S.!
I actually think the Boomers and the economic growth and prosperity of that time was the historical exception and not the rule.
Indeed, also dont forget that the economic elite in the west was deadly afraid of the soviet union and what they symbolised. Which made them more willing to share the spoils of the economic growth with the rest of society, rather then keeping it to themselves which they have done historically.
And after the post WW2 novelty of that wore of they are doing it again since the 70s or 80s. Wages for the average worker have stagnated since then while a ever increasing share of the wealth created since then is being funnelled towards the rich.
To be fair, when a generation begins and ends is highly nebulous.
A review of various studies, surveys, newspaper articles and demographers' statements provides a wide range of ages that so-called millennials fit into. Based on these analyses, a millennial could be anyone born between 1976 and 2010, a 34-year time span that includes Apple's founding and the IMF's Greek bailout.
From this 2015 article. Most studies I've seen identify Millennials as born between 1984 and 1997, but I've seen dates as early as 1977 and as late as 2004 used.
The term Xillennial I hadn't heard before this thread, but seems a valid way of identifying particularly those persons born between 76 and 84 who occupy that fuzzy space between the most arbitrary divisions demographers draw between generation groups
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/24 23:36:52
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Ketara wrote: I'm not sure any financial comparison that ranks Ireland ahead of the USA is worth much as a general economic indicator.
It's GDP per capita. At the moments in time when Ireland's GDP per capita is higher than the US, then Ireland ranks higher. I have literally no idea what your complaint is.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I think he is saying that Ireland's economy is no where near as good as the US economy. However, that is the thing about statistics, they are the worst way to measure things except for all the other ways.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I was in eastern Virginia a little while back and reading one of the papers over breakfast read something pretty funny. It was an editorial, so of course it was bs written by a moron, but they also seemed to be quite sincere in their lack of awareness.
It was decrying irresponsible millennials and their selfish ways, because after the writer retired, property taxes on their home would be to high so they needed to downsize to a nice 'grandparent's bungalow.' But the market is depressed and they can't sell for a reasonable cost because millennials are selfishly indulging themselves and spoiling their kinds, instead of settling down and being responsible. And now the writer is being forced to subsidize the lives of other peoples' spoiled kids with taxes on a home they're being prevented from selling!
Like I said, it was an editorial, so expecting an intelligent argument out of it isn't fair, but it's also not an uncommon opinion. Just look at Gorgon's posts in this thread for the same kind of stupid, if not deliberate, ignorance
gorgon wrote: Sometimes you need to take risks, especially if nothing much is going on for you anyway.
Yes, but with the way so many social safety nets have been gutted or restricted, if you take a risk and fail, you have nothing to fall back on. Hopefully, you're on good relationship with your parents and can crash in their basement for a while. Which then ties into the 'millenials are moochers, look at how many still live at home!' finger wagging.
That's why people don't want to take risks, and it's pretty myopic and ignorant to blame them for it, when it's a choice between between a bad or unpleasant situation or a catastrophic one. At least bad can mostly keep a roof over their heads.
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
Prior to 'hahaha, you have to pay for Uni' unfairness, I could have done an access course, and nicked off to improve my standing, even at my age. But no. No I can't. Because Student Grants are gone, and I'd just wind up with a ton of debt it's not worth incurring at this stage of life when there's no guarantee the degree will land me anything but my current job.
I daren't move jobs either. Where I am now has the 'next best' to a final salary pension, and I consider myself to get a fair enough wage. So I could jump ship for bigger money, but lose a lot of benefits which are going to make my later life easier - because so few employers bother with decent employee pensions these days.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Pensions period, are gone in most places in the U.S. My grandfather split his adulthood between being an electrician's mate in the Navy, and then working for Ma Ball until her retired.
In comparison, I was an engineering consultant for a major U.S. toolmaker, and after a merger, all the senior engineers were offered early retirement packages because their salaries and benefits cost so much. These were guys who'd spent their entire working lives with the company, many of them having started working there on apprenticeships. The company invested in their growth, and got the benefit of experience and knowledge.
Which it then all threw away in the span of four months (but that's a grip for another time).
They were replaced with much younger engineers, on much leaner salaries, and then I got to hear management complain about the amount of churn they had, because these young guys had no loyalty.
Again, total lack of self awareness, expecting loyalty and dedication from their employees, while making it abundantly clear that employees were just a dollar figure to be subtracted as needed.
At least it's better than Japan (another country with lots of 'why are this generation so irresponsible and selfish? Why are they so bad with money, and won't buy homes and settle down?) . I know one major electronics manufacturer over there that went from 200 full time employees to 6. There are actually now about 300 people working there, but the other 294 are all 'contract' employees. One year, six months, one month, whatever, they are employed for the term of their contract. When it's up, it gets renewed. But say business is way down and they need to lay off 100 employees. Just don't renew their contracts. They're not 'fired' so none of the protections or assistance from being laid off apply. For an added scoop of gak, if six months later, a contract worker is offered a new contract because business is up, but they had the disloyalty and temerity to get a job elsewhere in the meantime? They're never going to work for that manufacturer again.
I cringe at the thought of how sooner or later, someone in the U.S. is going to think this is a wonderful system and start trying to use it over here.
And that's not to say that Gorgon was completely wrong. There's always SOMETHING an individual can do, but when you're asking a question that applies to tens of millions of people, it's like focusing on one sick tree, ignoring the malady that's affecting the whole forest.
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
Prior to 'hahaha, you have to pay for Uni' unfairness, I could have done an access course, and nicked off to improve my standing, even at my age. But no. No I can't. Because Student Grants are gone, and I'd just wind up with a ton of debt it's not worth incurring at this stage of life when there's no guarantee the degree will land me anything but my current job.
I daren't move jobs either. Where I am now has the 'next best' to a final salary pension, and I consider myself to get a fair enough wage. So I could jump ship for bigger money, but lose a lot of benefits which are going to make my later life easier - because so few employers bother with decent employee pensions these days.
As a greedy, capitalist, executive I have you exactly where I want you! Mwahahahahahahahahahaha! Bow before me you Xillenial dog and worship your new master!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Bookwrack wrote: Pensions period, are gone in most places in the U.S. My grandfather split his adulthood between being an electrician's mate in the Navy, and then working for Ma Ball until her retired.
In comparison, I was an engineering consultant for a major U.S. toolmaker, and after a merger, all the senior engineers were offered early retirement packages because their salaries and benefits cost so much. These were guys who'd spent their entire working lives with the company, many of them having started working there on apprenticeships. The company invested in their growth, and got the benefit of experience and knowledge.
Which it then all threw away in the span of four months (but that's a grip for another time).
They were replaced with much younger engineers, on much leaner salaries, and then I got to hear management complain about the amount of churn they had, because these young guys had no loyalty.
Again, total lack of self awareness, expecting loyalty and dedication from their employees, while making it abundantly clear that employees were just a dollar figure to be subtracted as needed.
At least it's better than Japan (another country with lots of 'why are this generation so irresponsible and selfish? Why are they so bad with money, and won't buy homes and settle down?) . I know one major electronics manufacturer over there that went from 200 full time employees to 6. There are actually now about 300 people working there, but the other 294 are all 'contract' employees. One year, six months, one month, whatever, they are employed for the term of their contract. When it's up, it gets renewed. But say business is way down and they need to lay off 100 employees. Just don't renew their contracts. They're not 'fired' so none of the protections or assistance from being laid off apply. For an added scoop of gak, if six months later, a contract worker is offered a new contract because business is up, but they had the disloyalty and temerity to get a job elsewhere in the meantime? They're never going to work for that manufacturer again.
I cringe at the thought of how sooner or later, someone in the U.S. is going to think this is a wonderful system and start trying to use it over here.
Already happening. Been happening for at least 10 years at the company I work at. (Fortunately I work for a supplier now so don't have to worry about that any more) Though you can collect unemployment when your contract ends.
Bookwrack wrote: At least it's better than Japan (another country with lots of 'why are this generation so irresponsible and selfish? Why are they so bad with money, and won't buy homes and settle down?) . I know one major electronics manufacturer over there that went from 200 full time employees to 6. There are actually now about 300 people working there, but the other 294 are all 'contract' employees. One year, six months, one month, whatever, they are employed for the term of their contract. When it's up, it gets renewed. But say business is way down and they need to lay off 100 employees. Just don't renew their contracts. They're not 'fired' so none of the protections or assistance from being laid off apply. For an added scoop of gak, if six months later, a contract worker is offered a new contract because business is up, but they had the disloyalty and temerity to get a job elsewhere in the meantime? They're never going to work for that manufacturer again.
God damn. What does the employer expect the contract employee to do between contracts? Since their contract wasn't renewed is it safe to assume the employee wouldn't be eligible for any sort of public assistance? So are they just supposed to honorably starve?
Easy E wrote: I think he is saying that Ireland's economy is no where near as good as the US economy. However, that is the thing about statistics, they are the worst way to measure things except for all the other ways.
Is true. And there are issues with Ireland's measurement, because of their status as the world's most acceptable tax haven you get a lot of multi-nationals based there and looking to have revenue recognised in Ireland instead of higher tax countries. This grows GDP stats a lot more than it grows the real prosperity of the Irish economy. So there's that.
But to make a blanket claim that it is inconceivable that Ireland could be richer than the US seems kind of outdated. This isn't the 60s anymore, where the US was just streaks ahead of any other country. Sure, the US is clearly the most powerful nation with the largest economy overall, but that's because it is far and away the biggest of the rich countries. But looked at per person, there's actually a lot of countries which are about the same as the US, including Ireland, Australia and the others in the graph I linked.
To bring it back to the topic at hand, what was interesting wasn't that for a brief period Ireland pipped the US. What's interesting is the UK underperforming all but one of its former colonies, and having a trend line worse than all of them.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Bookwrack wrote: At least it's better than Japan (another country with lots of 'why are this generation so irresponsible and selfish? Why are they so bad with money, and won't buy homes and settle down?) . I know one major electronics manufacturer over there that went from 200 full time employees to 6. There are actually now about 300 people working there, but the other 294 are all 'contract' employees. One year, six months, one month, whatever, they are employed for the term of their contract. When it's up, it gets renewed. But say business is way down and they need to lay off 100 employees. Just don't renew their contracts. They're not 'fired' so none of the protections or assistance from being laid off apply. For an added scoop of gak, if six months later, a contract worker is offered a new contract because business is up, but they had the disloyalty and temerity to get a job elsewhere in the meantime? They're never going to work for that manufacturer again.
God damn. What does the employer expect the contract employee to do between contracts? Since their contract wasn't renewed is it safe to assume the employee wouldn't be eligible for any sort of public assistance? So are they just supposed to honorably starve?
Public assistance yes, but just as in most places, that's no where near as good as an actual job. And the obligations and assistance a company would have to provide to employees downsized through no fault of their don't apply to contract workers who don't get renewed. Plus, there's typically no warning before renewal time if the contract will actually be renewed or not. You don't know if you still have a job until you get your new contract. So it's so much easier and cost effective for companies,, but people get screwed.
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
Bookwrack wrote: At least it's better than Japan (another country with lots of 'why are this generation so irresponsible and selfish? Why are they so bad with money, and won't buy homes and settle down?)
In Japan 90% of all household net wealth is held by people over 60. The post war generation has basically horded everything.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
As with all things, it's a little more complicated than that.
The people over 60 are the ones who were in the middle/late segment of their prime earning years at the height of the Japanese economic bubble, and got the most time to reap the rewards of the mid-late 20th century economy.
The people under 60 are the ones who have spent the past 25-30 years working through recession and economic downturn. Spending your entire adult working life during a period of economic stagnation means that an entire generation has not had the wealth generation opportunities that the previous one did.
Japan also has generally been a slow adopter of easy access credit and credit card culture, preferring to stay more cash-based longer, and encouraged a greater saving culture than in the west. Coupled the above average life expectancy over there, that means older generally had accumulated a more noteable portion of wealth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 04:51:50
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
the point stands!)
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts