h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Most people born in the UK in the late 1920's have worked for 40 years or more in the certain knowledge that at the age of 65 they would be entitled to a state pension. As they grew older many realised that a state pension would no keep them in a way to which they were becoming accustomed and made efforts to supplement that state pension. Most of them have lived life at a much higher standard than that of their parents. They brought up their children accordingly.
Along with their children they now look at their grandchildren and wonder if they will continue to enjoy a better standard of life than their parents.
What chance ?

Difficult to say, not least, because 'better standard of living', is really a constantly moving 'feast'.... I think for very many years, things like reasonable* housing, reasonable* nutrition etc, had just gone virtually universal (IN the UK, mind), and so then the goalposts move... Is one having a decent standard of living now, without an internet connection, without a widescreen TV, or any number of a vast array of comsumer goods, and 'things' which almost now seem to be taken for granted as an absolute minamum, by a lot of the population, if not all..

I know my Dad can't afford to retire, he's in his 70s now, and having done everything 'one should', when he was in his thirtys and fortys (paid into private pensions as the Thatcher gov wanted at the time paid into work pensions etc), he's seen the vast majority of that vanish, for various reasons, moneys He could have had at the time, now vanished... and so he can't survive on the state pension, and, despite not having the best health in the world now, has to carry on working ... But... then that all comes down to 'standard of living'; he struggled through the huge morgage repayments in the 80s, when interset rates sored, worked back to back 12 hour shifts, and took a second job, etc., etc., so he has got his house, and I guess, part of the reason to continue working, is to allow the forign holidays, the food and drink he wants* to have etc... so much of which, is, at the end of the day, not necessary to exist, and not really a necessity I guess

My father would probably have said that he had a better standard of living than me because of how he measured it. He had the new car that he aspired to (saved a lifetime for it though) and lived in a house that was built to his specification.

I don't really have an interest in cars, and couldn't be bothered with the hassle of having the house built. My quality of life lies elsewhere.

I have more 'things' though. Things that just didn't exist in his lifetime. He experienced the internet before he died but it was clunky old dial-up. And I have a collection of guitars that give me great pleasure.

I have been able to travel to places that would have held little interest for him.

On the other hand, his. Working life probably didn't contain the stress and uncertainty that mine does.

He died at 65 being ill for the few months of retirement that he had. I can't retire until I'm 67 if I live that long (men in my family don't usually make old bones).

So it depends how you measure it all doesn't it?

PP.

Those born in the 1920's learned that they had to work if they wanted a home and family life. They were taught to respect doctors, policemen and teachers as pillars of society. What is it that those born after 2000 are learning about life and who are they being being taught to respect ?

So over 93 years of history, it is the young peoples fault?

Good point, Peanut.

And it has to be said, it can not be said without exception, that police, teachers and doctors ARE pillars of society.

Who IS? no single group of people I'm afraid.

There is a general lack of respect though towards others and to ourselves.

PP.

What is it that you see as the fault of the young people.

>> Who IS? <<

Good point. I suspect it is a result of our being constantly
encouraged to question everything. We question all authorities.
We are told that progress is made through a refusal to accept
the status quo. But now Skepticism has run amok.


~jwf~

Who are 'we'
Were they born in the 1920's ?

I must have read your post wrong.

I personally don't blame the young people, I'm sure they know that you have to work hard to have a home and family.

That in the main they also show respect to teachers, the police, and their GPs although they don't necessarily see them as 'their betters', respect is different to deference

Peanut. Some researchers may well have great, grandchildren.
Are you speaking about young people in general, or young people in your family line ?
"What chance" do they stand of having a better life than their parents ?
You still haven't said what it is you don't blame the young people for.

My parents didn't think that we would have a better life than them, I don't think Hiccup will have a better life than me, I was a child of the 70s, Hiccup in the 90s.

I have explained that I misread your post and that I don't blame young people for anything, I don't know what more to say on that

OK Peanut. Your half way there.
Rod seemed to think you made a good point. Wonder why ?
Could it be that he also misread the post but agrees that young people aren't to blame for lord knows what.
The question remains. Will today's children enjoy a better life than their parents ?

>>Rod seemed to think you made a good point. Wonder why ?<< Ancient Brit, post #14

That (my) comment was post #6, in response to post #5:
>>So over 93 years of history, it is the young peoples fault?<< Peanut, post #5
At the time, I noted the question mark at the end (asking "do you think that?") - and I haven't changed my mind.
- - - -

>>The question remains. Will today's children enjoy a better life than their parents ?<< AB, post #14.
The facile answer to that is "they damn' well ought".
That, however, doesn't take account of the ageing of 'our' civilisation and it's (perceived by some) decline.
Specifically:
Our future depends on educating our young (any arguments there?).
- Have you noticed any cuts in 'our' funding for education?
- Does anyone know what any 'emerging' or 'maturing' countries are doing in that line?


Rod

Education, training, work, job security, affordable housing.

clearly that isn't going happen.

Peanut -
What point are you trying to make
and how does this relate to the first post ?
Rod - What do you think it was that those born in the late 1920's thought their lives depended on.
Education is part of our economy, important enough to be obligatory. Unfortunately it has to be paid for, something of a liability to our life style and economy. We keep our kids at school for longer but they will still have to work for 40 years or more to pay for it. Just as well that we are living longer.
Surely we should live our lives in the way we want, not looking back at 'emerging' or 'maturing' countries ? Isn't it our life style that people aspire to ?

Rod said education, I pointed out a few other things that make a generation well off

>> Rod - What do you think it was that those born in the late 1920's thought their lives depended on.<< AB @ #18
I don't think about what people thought there lives depended on then or at any other time in particular.

I do, however, think that education then, before and since, is the single most important factor in enabling 'good' lives.

Extreme situation:
Cut education. Cut it to the bone. Teach children their letters and their numbers up to 20 then stop.
Wait 20 years then start looking for the means to import the things people think their lives depend on.