Thread: How the tide turns

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Disclaimer: this is not a political statement and have not intention to pursuit a debate on that lines

nothing political about it.
this isnt the one i was looking for but it will have to do.

Why Your Baby Boomer Parents Are the Reason You Can't Get a Job
(from the UK written 2 months ago)

As tuition fees reach £9,000 a year and the number of unemployed graduates in the UK hits 130,000 it's hard to listen out for news of a job vacancy above the hubbub of parents probing why their children can't "just get a job." With an increasingly competitive occupation market it's becoming progressively important to succeed in exams despite being continuously told by our parents that school was "so much harder in our day." It may soothe students to find that it is their Baby Boomer parents fault and not their own.

Our value systems are shaped in our early years by our families, friends, communities and significant events. This is how we can explain why people who are similarly aged, and who have therefore been exposed to the same historical and cultural pressures, view the world in the same way. Our parents, born 1940s-1960s, are Baby Boomers and we, born 1980s-2000s, are in the Millennial Generation.

It's not uncommon to hear our parents say "it was a lot harder in our day" or "we had to do so much more work" but in reality they are unable to comprehend the multiplicity of the current curriculum. Our subjects are not rigidly differentiated as they have been until now. Assignments often overlap all disciplines, for example one week's homework may demand you research your material for biology, make it read like an English essay, compile the rest of the data for maths whilst using IT skills to present it all. This is typical of a year six weekend project. Millennial nine year olds do an hour of homework a night whilst their Boomer parents were out climbing trees at the same age. It's also vital to note that the proliferation of qualifications has resulted in students having to gain more, making our parents claims that their eight-10 OLevels were excruciatingly difficult compared to our 12-14 GCSEs irrelevant. In a lot of ways I think the Baby Boomers grumbling about "how easy you all have it" stems from a deep rooted guilt about their role in the demise of their own children's economy.

According to generation theories Baby Boomers rebelled against their Silent Generation parents who grew up amidst WW2 and the Great Depression. Their 'waste not want not' attitude caused their children to indulge themselves in luxurious lifestyles after a childhood of penny-saving. They replaced the traditional 'womb to tomb' loyalty to a nine- five career for a city job that never sleeps. Globally, gross domestic product growth hovered around 10% making the purchasing power of money as good as it ever got in the twentieth century. They were the society that created the YUPPIE (Young Upwardly Mobile Professional) which symbolised the generation's materialistic, self-satisfying attitude. Most of our Baby Boomer parents are still not retired; in fact they are refusing to age quietly. These silver haired foxes, however, are unaware that their attitude has posed a great challenge for the coming generations.

Baby Boomers saw university as a human right and used any excuse to go. The economic boom coupled with the low tuition fees saw huge numbers of people graduate and new degrees like 'surfing' or 'golf management' created. The propagation of tertiary education saw the tuition fees, and entry requirements, rise which has caused the Millennial Generation to question the worth of a degree. Today we see the market for skills not degrees and are constantly being told three years of work experience is more valuable than a BA Hons. Most corporations expect to see extensive work experience, extra-curricular activities, academic records that include glowing GCSE and A Level results and at least a 2:1 to be considered for a job. How then, may I ask, do we have it easy?

The institutions that suffer the most from generation gaps are the ones where there is a big age and outlook difference between the people giving orders and those receiving them. Margaret Mead, the initial generation theorist, believed that "nowhere in the world are there elders who know what their children know" which means teachers have had to come to terms with the fact that often their pupils know more than they do. Long gone are the days when teachers 'knew it all' as some youngsters have travelled to multiple continents by the age of five and most have the ability to Google, and contradict, anything their teacher says on the spot. This has required a huge paradigm shift, which has resulted in complex curriculums and more modern teaching styles to rival the traditional, linear and frankly easier system our parents learnt with.

It is, however, not all bad. I see our generation as infinitely wiser than any other at the same age. We are taking in, and learning to add value to, information younger than ever formerly. Before we have started secondary school we have learnt how to source and analyse data from books, magazines, TV and, of course, the internet. After all it was George Bernard Shaw who said that his "education had been interrupted by having to attend school"; none prove this insight more true than Millennials who pass through the education system alongside their smartphones. We are doing our best to resist the overwhelming pressure from our parents to perform better by reassigning our priorities rather than following those of our workaholic, divorce indulgent, materialistic parents. From a young age we are identifying the need to have a work-life balance; we are a generation involved in charity and volunteer projects that are focused on travelling the world not just occupying an office 9-5. Growing up surrounded by single-parent homes has forced us to value our friendships and be cautious of relationships. Being born into a post-9/11 world where we are constantly bombarded with fear-mongering news has, ultimately, given us an underlying desire to have a job that means more than a pay cheque and to live a life where we are defined not just by our careers.

stolen from elsewhere, has many good points

Hello. My name is Jessica. I'm in my early thirties and I don't own property.
Yes, I'm a member of the "Generation Rent" you keep hearing about; transient and intransigent in our refusal to buy property. We much prefer sleeping in on Saturdays to racing around town to inspect flea-bitten properties we can't afford.

Rent or buy? Have your say or ask Jess a question in the comments section below

Alarm bells were set ringing this week after news that first time home buyers are at their lowest share of all new mortgages in a decade.

"What is wrong with them?" the baby boomers wonder. "Why won't they settle down, move into the suburbs and saddle up with a mortgage like we did?"

It's easy to understand the concern about Generation Rent. Home ownership has served the boomers well. For most, their homes have become their nest eggs, providing a significant source of wealth in retirement.

But times have changed.

First, the hurdle to home ownership is much higher today than it was when boomers were buying their first home. Australia's household debt to income ratio exploded over the past few decades, sending home prices soaring relative to incomes. Fine if you're already on the ladder, but making it much harder to get on.

By necessity, Generation Rent must work longer to save the same deposit as their parents. It's even harder when interest rates are at record lows as they are now.

So we should all stop being so hoity-toity and move further out to the outer urban fringes where housing is more affordable, right?

Sadly, suburban living is not the easy answer it once was.

When boomers and their parents migrated to the suburbs, jobs were for life and traffic was sparse. You could settle in one job, live nearby and drive to work.

Today, Generation Rent change jobs more frequently and those jobs are more likely to be located in the inner city. You think we're flighty. But we know there are financial benefits from finding a job that best suits your skills. We've also found out the hard way that loyalty to one company is not rewarded the way it once was.

Increased traffic congestion also makes living on the fringe of cities more costly in public transport fees and petrol, not to mention dead time sitting in traffic.

Yes, it is cheaper to buy in outer suburban areas, but problems with urban congestion also mean outer areas are less likely to enjoy future house price gains.

For Generation Rent, it may well make financial sense to wait and save up a bigger deposit to buy in a more centrally located area.

But, I hear you worrying, if Generation Rent never buys property, how do they expect to save anything for retirement? Again, times have changed. From my very first job, my employer has been setting aside 9 per cent of my salary into superannuation. Boomers wealth was built in bricks and mortar, but Generation Rent has significant savings locked up in super.

But (you're getting impatient now, aren't you?) rent money is dead money!

Yes, but so too is interest paid to a bank. Only a small amount of monthly mortgage repayments represent real saving - paying off the principal of the loan.

Instead of paying interest to a bank, I pay rent to a landlord and put the remainder in an online savings account.

The real question, then, is whether you're better off investing your money building home equity through a mortgage or investing spare cash in other alternatives, like super, shares or cash.

Interestingly, over the past decade, house prices have risen 64 per cent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Aussie share market - despite the GFC - has also gained 60 per cent. And money invested in the average online saving account would have grown by 61 per cent.

Where they will go in the next decade is anyone's guess. It's a punt.

Like all investments, there are advantages and disadvantages to owning property that should be considered in the cold hard light of day and not under parental pressure to buy buy buy!

On the downside, housing is an illiquid investment that incurs substantial transaction costs in stamp duty. Houses also depreciate over time, requiring money to be spent on maintenance and repairs (although land values only ever seem to go up thanks to inadequate supply).

On the upside, mortgages can be a good forced savings plan and - because banks are willing to lend more against property than shares - a great way to leverage into asset price growth.

The most compelling argument for homeownership is a consequence of policy. Australians have also built our homes into excellent tax shelters. You pay no tax on any profit you make on your principal home, unlike shares or cash.

Eventually, the tax advantages of home ownership mean I will probably look to buy.

In the meantime, there are benefits to renting, like not paying stamp duty, having someone else pay for repairs and council rates, not paying interest to a bank and having the freedom and flexibility to live close to work.

What's so irresponsible about that?