:bbc: The BBC

I’m allowed to play fast & loose with the rules of grammar, because I know what I’m doing, and any inconsistencies against the preferred form are merely stylistic choices, or tpyos.

1 Like

I agree, saving for a house on the minimum wage is very difficult, but then I’m pretty sure it was hard to own a house in the 60’s and 70’s if you were on that little money and on your own.

Originally posted by @Bearsy

I know ur not srs questions and are trying to make a point of some kind, pap, but I’m not sure what it is.

Is it that because chertsey doesn’t earn as much as Wayne Rooney (as far as we know), that proves that the system is completely stacked against young ppl, and young ppl, no matter how diligently they go about their business, can never hope to be Well Off, unless they’re Wayne Rooney?

Thanks for picking up on the hints, Bear. This human world isn’t such a mess, after all.

Yeah, the points are not serious. It’s a general point on how arbitrary life can be using an extreme example. I don’t actually think Cherts is on solid ground with his claims; I and most of the footballing world think Rooney has squandered much of his talent, even if he has been handsomely renumerated for it. In his defence, he does turn up at his old primary school with a lot of regularity, but the reality is that he earns 250K a week because football is a very valuable commodity, and English footballers are a valuable commodity within that market. And That’s The Way It Is.

Cherts’ whole approach to this was “I did it. Why can’t they?”. I know that our industry (the computing industry) is in demand, and can make a lot of money for both employers and those that get hired, but not every industry gets the same. The pair of us out-earn nurses. Will we ever do anything as useful? Doubt it.

I’ve got a rough idea of what Cherts will bring home, and with his other investments (and comparative lack of outgoings, operating on a vague he’s-not-paying-for-a-kid-in-fucking-university type assessment), he won’t be doing badly and if he has any sense, he’ll realise the pair of us lucked out falling into the industry we did.

I’m sure it’s a very comfortable position from which to pontificate about how hard kids aren’t having it these days. It isn’t a very convincing one.

Barry is actually Stephen Fry.

2 Likes

Originally posted by @Goatboy

Originally posted by @Bearsy

I’m allowed to play fast & loose with the rules of grammar, because I know what I’m doing, and any inconsistencies against the preferred form are merely stylistic choices, or tpyos.

Barry is actually Stephen Fry.

Bet he’s loving Bucks’ rant against Twatter right now.

I can’t do that because I don’t have the natural talent to do that. I could certainly have worked harder and have a better earning job than I do now, and o recognise that…What’s your point?

Originally posted by @pap

Originally posted by @Bearsy

I know ur not srs questions and are trying to make a point of some kind, pap, but I’m not sure what it is.

Is it that because chertsey doesn’t earn as much as Wayne Rooney (as far as we know), that proves that the system is completely stacked against young ppl, and young ppl, no matter how diligently they go about their business, can never hope to be Well Off, unless they’re Wayne Rooney?

Thanks for picking up on the hints, Bear. This human world isn’t such a mess, after all.

Yeah, the points are not serious. It’s a general point on how arbitrary life can be using an extreme example. I don’t actually think Cherts is on solid ground with his claims; I and most of the footballing world think he has squandered much of his talent, even if he has been handsomely renumerated for it. In his defence, he does turn up at his old primary school with a lot of regularity, but the reality is that he earns 250K a week because football is a very valuable commodity, and English footballers are a valuable commodity within that market. And That’s The Way It Is.

Cherts’ whole approach to this was “I did it. Why can’t they?”. I know that our industry (the computing industry) is in demand, and can make a lot of money for both employers and those that get hired, but not every industry gets the same. The pair of us out-earn nurses. Will we ever do anything as useful? Doubt it.

I’ve got a rough idea of what Cherts will bring home, and with his other investments (and comparative lack of outgoings, operating on a vague he’s-not-paying-for-a-kid-in-fucking-university type assessment), he won’t be doing badly and if he has any sense, he’ll realise the pair of us lucked out falling into the industry we did.

I’m sure it’s a very comfortable position from which to pontificate about how hard kids aren’t having it these days. It isn’t a very convincing one.

I got a bit confused why Cherts is visiting his old primary school so often but I know what you mean.

I don’t work computers, i work construction, and In My Experience anyone who is really wanting to graft, which is prob only about 2 people in 10, of which I am not one, will quickly get to the Top of their Field and earn Gd Dollar.

Yeah, I spotted that and tidied that up in the edit. D’oh.

I think that there is a tremendous amount of truth in what you’ve said, regarding application leading to success. One of the best things about working for certain clients long term has been watching old mates do well. That said, I have also seen people kept back for stupid reasons, such as (at one time) lack of a degree, interpersonal politics or just being thrown under the figurative bus because someone else could do it.

I have seen as many ruthless bastards at the top as grafters.

Pap living up the road from where Rooney is from, its over the road…

To be fair, I wanted to go into economics. I went into the industry I did because when I came out of university I needed a job, so I went into the first job I found (Test Analyst) and was to wait until a serious role materialised. In the end I stayed where I was, took a demotion and pay cut to get into Business Analysis.

I certainly would not class being in the industry I am as being lucky though Pap, I have to spend my time talking to people like you :lou_wink:

Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez

Pap living up the road from where Rooney is from, its over the road…

Norris Green is over the road, meff. Croxteth is about a mile away.

You should consider moving up this way. You might have more chance of finding that elusive spare room or extra car. Y’know. High brow stuff.

Originally posted by @Fatso

I’ve downvoted this, KRG. I’m finding it hard to explain, fully, why…especially without upsetting you. I think my main objection is the initial phrase about how this country is hostile towards the young. I understand what Pap is saying in that if the young feel it is happening then it should be considered. However, I just don’t buy it (and it is offensive for you to simply dismiss this as more evidence that society has got it in for the young).

im happy to accept that some things have got worse for younger people, particularly university fees, grants and debts related to education. However, look at how many more people go to university now than in the past. Look at the quality of education now compared to the past. Things have improved since my days at school. During the labour government, shed loads of money was pumped into education. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current government, but education is not the only area where public spending has been cut.

Youth unemployment may be an issue, but you’re not the first generation to have it. When I left school youth unemployment was worse than it is now. When I was at school there were riots across the country by disaffected youths. As someone pointed out earlier, this stuff is cyclical rather than part of some orchestrated campaign against young people.

mental health issues many be on the rise…or they could be more widely spoken about and recognised rather than being swept under the carpet or ignored as they were in the past. You’re saying the hostility towards the young is shown in that spending has been cut in this area. But there are more services available today then in the past. There is better understanding about such issues today than the past. It is dealt with in schools whereas none of this happened in the past. I’m struggling to see how this shows a hostility towards the young.

as for your point about all the talk being about how awful young people are…sorry, that’s bollocks. Where has that come from? Who says that? I genuinely haven’t heard or read anyone saying that.

your final paragraph talks about poor long term planning and investment in infra structure…that may well be the case but that’s not the same as “hostility towards the young”. Everyone (other than the rich) are suffering from the austerity measures and policies of the Tories. We have an ageing population and those older people face greater and greater issues…as does the NHS in terms of looking after those people. Surely we should be spending on those older people? If you accept that’s there’s only a certain amount of money available, why should the young people be the ones who have the cash, why not the older people? You made a point about young people being told to save…well, older people have had their pension conditions changed and retirement age raised whilst working towards an end date. This isn’t a older people vs younger people hostility, it’s (as it has always been) a rich people vs the rest of us hostility. I think that talk of older people making life difficult for younger ones and the tone of your response actually do more damage than anything else. Your post is accusatory and doesn’t invite discussion and diverts attention from what the real issue is.

Some impressive mental gymnastics here.

Starting by implying I’m ever so easily offended (because Barry said it? Or because I say things are shitty sometimes? I dunno), but then saying how offensive it is to suggest that whenever young people raise issues, they are dismissed. Still stand by that, you and plenty others here are doing just that.

Leading on from that, you are offended at my dismissal yet you dismiss what I’m saying because you don’t like the initial phrasing. You then finish by furthering that point, dismissing any concerns because you don’t like the tone. Always a classic block used to anyone that has an issue with society. “Hey guys, I get that you are angry and feel powerless to change your situation but could you possibly be a bit nicer? I don’t like it when you point out how we are messing things up for you. Thanks”.

It’s all very well saying more people go to university. But, as society has changed it’s become more important to have a degree. There’s much less industry than there was previously in this country and an increasingly large amount of jobs that didn’t previously require a degree now do. More people go to university because they have to, and for many years apprenticeships were chronically underfunded or ignored. Which meant that avenue wasn’t open to many (honestly, when I was leaving school in '05 and being told of my options there was never any mention of apprenticeships).

On Student Loans & Fees, it isn’t as simple as that. Recently, grants and bursaries were completely scrapped. Gone. That is a massive barrier to entry to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. My parents could go to university for free, and have support provided to them to help them through. People about to start university will rack up getting on for £50k in debt, and there will be no financial support for those that come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Free higher education has a massive bearing on social mobility. My parents were both the first in their families to go to university (I’m sure there are many others who this is also true for), that enabled them to both go on to secure jobs and careers that their parents before them were not. Kids born into disadvantaged areas now will not have that option.

If youth unemployment has been a longstanding problem, how exactly does that disprove my point? The fact that there is no will to fix this problem suggests that for a long period young people and the issues facing them are ignored on a long term basis. I don’t have any idea how old you are/when you left school so I can’t really make any direct comparisons. But, issues around youth unemployemt are the worst they have been in at least generation. I would argue that the true picture is much worse than is reported, due to the number of folks stuck in part-time employment when they want to be full-time and the number of people on zero-hours contracts. It’s also pretty well known that the govt is rather fond of strategically changing their statistics to exclude people who don’t help their cause.

Cuts to services are general, that is true. However, how many services specifically target any other group for exclusion. How many other groups are told they are not entitled to housing benefits, or come with more severe restrictions? It’s all well and good saying go live with your parents, but for many that simply isn’t an option. Society is changing, people are increasingly growing up in broken homes. Buying, and even renting, in many areas is way beyond the means of masses of young people. Coupled with that lack of decent, secure jobs for young people this is a toxic mix that can lead to things such as crime or homelessness.

Moving onto which. Homelessness amongst young people is another thing massively on the increase. The a scary % (apologies, I cannot remember the exact figure off the top of my head - appropriately, Professor Green is currently doing a good series about this on BBC 3) of people that are homeless, or rough sleeping first find themselves in that position before the age of 21. Once people find themselves in that position, it becomes a cycle that is incredibly hard to break. Young people are stuck in that rut for life. Of course, funding to help those people is being cut.

Like you, I’ve seen my generation riot. 2011, there was pretty severe riots by young people across the country. What started out as reaction to perceived institutional racism from the police soon escalated and enveloped a lot of dissatisfaction of young people that felt there chances in life were being severely hampened due to an economic crash that they played no part to create. Coverage of these was incredibly biased, painting all the rioters as criminals and thugs. Again, I don’t know how old you are, so I don’t know which riots you are referring to, but I can imagine it was probably a similar story then. Concerns of the young are dismissed.

I never claimed this was a particularly new phenomenon. But it seems folks older than me have jumped to be offended at the perceived injustice at someone suggesting that things are getting worse for younger folks. I personally think that the next generation, my kids if I ever have them, will have it worse than me.

As for your final paragraph, I think that just highlights a lot of the problems. Why should it be older vs younger? My initial point regarding hostility is that a lot of decisions currently being made are burdening current crop of young people and subsequent generations disproportionally for mistakes they had no part in.

I disagree with the assertion that there is finite money. We make money, it happens all the time. This idea of balancing the books like you or I would with our household budget is a lie. Economies on a grand scale do not work like that. Governments and central banks create money all the time. In fact, economists generally agree that the best course of action during recession is in fact to create more money, and increase public spending. This is to counter the effects of people and businesses spending less. If you generate more money, and more spending there is increased economic activity. If you spend more on younger people in the short term, you save money on the long term by decreasing homelessness, joblessness and everything that comes with that. Spending more on education and training means more skilled workers, working in better jobs, paying more tax. Spent in the right places, government funding often has a positive ratio in terms of money spent : money back into the economy. In turn, that helps to ensure the proper running of services and provisions for elderly people. That’s not to say that is a permanent solution, that cannot go on forever, but once things improve, that is when you start to cut your cloth accordingly. But it is short sighted in the extreme to hamper the options for young people long term to ‘save money’ in the short term. You are then only going to have to support that generation further for their entire lives.

The final point is again, a total contradiction. You bemoan me dismissing stuff, or bieng accusatory, but it’s exactly what you are doing. And linking again to above, it’s dismissing concerns because you don’t like the delivery of them.

5 Likes

One was being self deprecating, 4 bed detached in Cressington Pap.

I didn’t read that but up vote for the effort.

1 Like

I stop playing the fool and actually being it and you tarts are all a fighting, Bazza brings harmony as the bullets fly in one direction, as Norris Green Pap says I’m Batnan and have wings of shit.

Yeah, I didn’t actually realise how long it was til seeing it posted. Oops.

People wanted me to stop rucking with you, they made their own bed.

KRG, you strike me as a good egg. There is plenty in your post that I disagree with but I doubt further discussion would make either of us change our mind. However, one point I would like to pick up on is this:

“My initial point regarding hostility is that a lot of decisions currently being made are burdening current crop of young people and subsequent generations disproportionally for mistakes they had no part in.”

NONE of us had anything to do with those mistakes (I assume you’re talking about the global recession and banking crisis?). And that is why it’s not hostility being shown towards the young, but instead being shown to those who aren’t part of the wealthy elite, young or old. My life has changed because of what happened in 2008 and I am entirely blame free. I didnt fuck anything up but I’m being asked to pay the cost.

Originally posted by @KRG

Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez

I didn’t read that but up vote for the effort.

Yeah, I didn’t actually realise how long it was til seeing it posted. Oops.

I gave you an upvote because I thought it was a robust reply which illustrates how important perspective is in the issue. Everyone is seeing this issue from different points of their life, and I know myself that it is easy to romanticise some bloody difficult times into warm periods of nostalgia.

If I didn’t have kids near that age, I could easily be as blind to the issues.

1 Like

Originally posted by @Fatso

KRG, you strike me as a good egg. There is plenty in your post that I disagree with but I doubt further discussion would make either of us change our mind. However, one point I would like to pick up on is this:

“My initial point regarding hostility is that a lot of decisions currently being made are burdening current crop of young people and subsequent generations disproportionally for mistakes they had no part in.”

NONE of us had my thing to do with those mistakes (I assume you’re talking about the global recession and banking crisis?). And that is why it’s not hostility being shown towards the young, but instead being shown to those who aren’t part of the wealthy elite, young or old. My life has changed because of what happened in 2008 and I am entirely blame free. I didnt fuck anything up but I’m being asked to pay the cost.

sry Fatso, we’re not letting you off the hook as easy at that. You could’ve run for President, you could’ve set a series of soap bombs off under Barclays offices, or whatever it was in Fight Club, you could’ve given all your money to me, but you didn’t. You did nothing.

It’s like when shortly after the second world war I was chatting with a German bro, and I said, it’s ok, I realise that not every German is a Nazi, and he broke down crying with gratitude, because he knew I understood what it’s like, but then I said, ‘Still, you could’ve done more to stop them, couldn’t you?’ True Story.