boomer life UK

[sunsilk]

Despite not being from there, it seems like in almost every country, it was the ideal time to live. There is no pollution, not that much stress and everyone has got their backs to support. If I'll be choosing to live on which timeline I want to be, I'll choose that time.

Those were the times when people were just into music, not too much stressed about taxation and they'd pay any cost of it. Lands were almost free because you didn't have to be stressed out thinking of your mortgage as it was the time of building for most nations.

But it is easy to distinguish at that time, the rich and the other classes.

[STT]

Retrospective envy is kinda nonsense as the 1950's were a harsh post war economic winter for the British that lasted decades, a massive debt had to repaid spent during the war that took 50 years with interest to finalize.  Only the 80's saw more prosperity as London finance paid a dividend with the switch to faster electronic trading, even then the British national base interest rate entered double figures and the European economic region operating the European Exchange Rate Mechanism threw out UK for non compliance, this was the predecessor to the modern EURO; if you ever wondered why UK is not in the euro and is slightly hostile to the idea it could be taken from this alone.

To state only positives and forget all the challenges and work done post war would be pointless.   The debt repaid saw later benefits, hard work done with investment and a switch away from inefficient industry to more private business over large nationalization was beneficial but that's all an ongoing story and there is large amount of debt outstanding as UK operated massive amounts of QE still on the books.  

[franky1]

I have had quite different experiences, A rich guy with a foul language that is not really someone you classify as upper class.
I recognize that some societies lack finesse though. If in your society that is the way to qualify even a thief can make it?

those people of previous era who dress smart and speak as if they have had elocution lessons did not indicate wealth. they just "faked it til they made it"

there were many many rich people with foul language and bad taste in clothing.
you were not considered upper class based on your pronunciation or dress code. it was more about how many businesses you owned and your wealth

even rich people made vulgar comments. they just (sometimes) were very witty about how they insult people
EG in the UK the rich elites that become lords in parliament chambers throw insults around. they just use different words than a common man would
"cretin" "obtuse" "unwashed"

[harapan]

Economic boom is determined by the standard of living of the average income earners, so if the good life that economist talked about was only enjoyed by the rich, then it doesn't determine what the UK economy was then, but if the average income earners were enjoying those privileges then it's something to be missed. It might not be possible to enjoy such economic privileges in this present day because population has doubled many times over since then, including immigrants that are entering UK in their high numbers now. We're living in the age of do it yourself, so if you want the good life, then you'd need to earn it without relying on the state.

Baby boomers have faced more competition from others in their age group,they lived in a competitive environment,they had an faced challenges,but it wasn't as hard as now.Although some people think that the boomer generation had the best of life,that they lived the quality life during their lifetime.

Compared to this age,things were relatively easy and cheap to handle,the standard of living can be only be maintained and improved personally without expecting support from the government.

I feel like the experience were different and the boomer generation had the chance to enjoy peace,love,and an era of stability.Even with the fact that they were not all that wealthy,they still enjoyed employment opportunities,economic stability and there decade full with economic prosperity.

[wxa7115]

Despite not being from there, it seems like in almost every country, it was the ideal time to live. There is no pollution, not that much stress and everyone has got their backs to support. If I'll be choosing to live on which timeline I want to be, I'll choose that time.

Those were the times when people were just into music, not too much stressed about taxation and they'd pay any cost of it. Lands were almost free because you didn't have to be stressed out thinking of your mortgage as it was the time of building for most nations.

But it is easy to distinguish at that time, the rich and the other classes.

Each particular era has its own set of challenges, before the 50s, which are remembered fondly by some as a golden age, there were the 40s, and the 40s were one of the most difficult decades to live through the past century, as WWII affected everyone in some way or form.

So those that lived to enjoy the 50s, suffered the 40s, so that is definitely a time I would not have liked to be alive, and even if right now we are facing our own challenges, I really like it even if my life is not perfect by any means.

[sunsilk]

Despite not being from there, it seems like in almost every country, it was the ideal time to live. There is no pollution, not that much stress and everyone has got their backs to support. If I'll be choosing to live on which timeline I want to be, I'll choose that time.

Those were the times when people were just into music, not too much stressed about taxation and they'd pay any cost of it. Lands were almost free because you didn't have to be stressed out thinking of your mortgage as it was the time of building for most nations.

But it is easy to distinguish at that time, the rich and the other classes.

Each particular era has its own set of challenges, before the 50s, which are remembered fondly by some as a golden age, there were the 40s, and the 40s were one of the most difficult decades to live through the past century, as WWII affected everyone in some way or form.

So those that lived to enjoy the 50s, suffered the 40s, so that is definitely a time I would not have liked to be alive, and even if right now we are facing our own challenges, I really like it even if my life is not perfect by any means.

Today, many of us faces challenges due to economic situation of each country. Even the superpowers and first-world countries have their own crises that they're facing now.

Recession as declared in some notable countries that have had a good economy for the past years. But with a lot of happenings in the world now, even UK and nearby countries can't skip it.

But if there is a time machine, I'd choose to go back in the past. Life wasn't too complicated before and people won't worry about inflation and recession.

[STT]

Everyone in these modern generations is forgetting all the benefits from technology that is there.    All the mechanics and electronics that lighten the work load, but the problem is while this workload was relieved the taxation was increased.   That is the biggest difference to previous generations just over a hundred years ago there was not a personal tax levied on people you only had to pay via the businesses and other bodies which paid tax.   Say that to people now and they wont believe you, the taxation levels now have risen greatly.

That is the burden in comparison to post war that is true and fair to say.   If you count every tax you pay, sales, local and federal it might be as much as half your plain income is gifted away to government bodies.   That is not the last tax either, control of money centrally and new issuance to favor government spending adds another unknown burden altogether.

Yes its true modern generations starting on their working career are far worse off then prior, people were earning a plain mostly untaxed income even in the post war recovery.

[Albarq]

is life for Boomers in the UK like that?

The 1950s were a good decade to be born in Britain. A newly minted welfare state ensured that your early years were free from squalor. For the lucky few who made it there, university cost nothing. During your peak earning years, taxes plunged thanks to Margaret Thatcher, oil gushing from the North Sea and the restorative effect of the EU’s single market on the sick man of Europe. Rocketing house prices more than compensated for a few years of high interest rates. Defined-benefit pension schemes, then still the norm, ensured that retirement would be prosperous.
Whatever this generation wanted, this generation nearly always got.  ........

source: the economist over https://archive.is/aWdik#selection-1079.0-1093.67

Is it possible that the economist forgot about some classes? 
Or is the UK mainstream really like that ??

During the boomer generation in England, it could be measured by the level of welfare of their families, enough for their minds to be at peace, work that did not drain too much of their minds and energy, enjoying those times - 50 years ago, the low price levels at that time made them enjoy life.

[Cryptomultiplier]

is life for Boomers in the UK like that?

The 1950s were a good decade to be born in Britain. A newly minted welfare state ensured that your early years were free from squalor. For the lucky few who made it there, university cost nothing. During your peak earning years, taxes plunged thanks to Margaret Thatcher, oil gushing from the North Sea and the restorative effect of the EU’s single market on the sick man of Europe. Rocketing house prices more than compensated for a few years of high interest rates. Defined-benefit pension schemes, then still the norm, ensured that retirement would be prosperous.
Whatever this generation wanted, this generation nearly always got.  ........

source: the economist over https://archive.is/aWdik#selection-1079.0-1093.67

Is it possible that the economist forgot about some classes? 
Or is the UK mainstream really like that ??

The good old days have sure changed perhaps that's why many of our old parents in politics think they can revert the current government policies back to the policies of those booming years, and that's the lie in their campaign agenda.
I believe much attention then was given to grow and improve the economy following the post war era and with fewer citizens.
There was a lot of national portfolio restructuring by the economist then, as compared to now when many government economist focus on taxation, investment in future technology that doesn't benefit now, and crime/individual pocket policing and more foreign export products rather than home made products.

[God bless u]

Yeah it was like said in the past that Britain was an empire which can't be held down but it was actually. Nothing in this world is permanent if we look at the history it justifies my statement. The Ottoman Empire then the British empire then the Mughal Empire all are examples of the fact that nothing is forever. Yes you can have some good times with your nation on the upfront but it wouldn't last forever.

Britain got many natural resources from third world countries and used it for its growth and empowerment.As soon after the World war defeat everything was stopped so they were unable to fetch more. The storage of resources starting to fly away and now it's a result of what you're seeing today.

[bluebit25]

Each generation is different and has its own opportunities and challenges. The notion that the “good old days” were always better tends to ignore the complexities that any particular era entails. The post-World War period is one of the typical examples when there were many opportunities in reconstruction but also many difficulties.

When the world is globalizing. While there is certainly more competition, the good news is that it also leads to cheaper products and services as well as the ability to outsource some work. While the changes may make it difficult to move jobs, in theory this should help workers gain other opportunities and higher pay. At least such a movement will be easy.

[God bless u]

Each generation is different and has its own opportunities and challenges. The notion that the “good old days” were always better tends to ignore the complexities that any particular era entails. The post-World War period is one of the typical examples when there were many opportunities in reconstruction but also many difficulties.

When the world is globalizing. While there is certainly more competition, the good news is that it also leads to cheaper products and services as well as the ability to outsource some work. While the changes may make it difficult to move jobs, in theory this should help workers gain other opportunities and higher pay. At least such a movement will be easy.

These points are good to consider but implementing them is a big challenge. Developing on your own is a time consuming and difficult process.

Especially when you have a habit of developing by suppressing others then developing your own hands is a bit difficult. Don't mind but its a reality that the Britain empire always developed by using resources of others and as soon as after the defeat in the world war they were forced to create colonies. Now they have a certain control over them but not the control that they want to get a good amount of resources out of the countries.

[tyz]

Economic boom is determined by the standard of living of the average income earners, so if the good life that economist talked about was only enjoyed by the rich, then it doesn't determine what the UK economy was then, but if the average income earners were enjoying those privileges then it's something to be missed. It might not be possible to enjoy such economic privileges in this present day because population has doubled many times over since then, including immigrants that are entering UK in their high numbers now. We're living in the age of do it yourself, so if you want the good life, then you'd need to earn it without relying on the state.

Don't think it is so easy! The relationship between economic boom and the standard of living of average income earners is a complex and multifaceted issue. The notion that the good life enjoyed by the rich does not necessarily reflect the overall economic well-being of a country is a valid point. If the privileges of economic growth are only enjoyed by a small elite, it is unlikely that the growth will be sustainable . This is because economic growth should ideally lead to an increase in the standard of living for the majority of the population, not just a select few.

[Die_empty]

Is it possible that the economist forgot about some classes? 
Or is the UK mainstream really like that ??

The current economic realities are becoming complex and most governments don't know how to handle these problems. COVID-19 affected the economies of many nations and some of them have not recovered fully. The UK the and USA are focusing more on international politics than concentrating on internal problems. These nations spend more to finance wars instead of channeling the funds to take care of the needs of the people. Another issue is that some European nations are facing a fall in population which has made them depend on immigrants for manpower. Many of these immigrants turn out to put more pressure on the system making to face several problems.

In general, the 50's and 60's were economically good decades. Europe was rebuilding and growing after WWII, it was a time when the economy was booming, getting a job was easy, and the welfare state took hold. There was an increase in energy consumption and no problem burning fossil fuels, the middle class grew, could buy more consumer goods and travel.

I assume that this is a global problem because some African countries also had better economies in the 60s and even 70s. During these years jobs were easy to get and all graduates had a car and an apartment allocated by the government. The currency of my country was equal to the USD and there was no need to travel abroad to seek greener pastures. Today the middle class has disappeared from the societal class because the gap between the poor and the rich kept increasing. I assume that population growth and corruption contributed immensely to the problems my country is facing.

[Fortify]

is life for Boomers in the UK like that?

The 1950s were a good decade to be born in Britain. A newly minted welfare state ensured that your early years were free from squalor. For the lucky few who made it there, university cost nothing. During your peak earning years, taxes plunged thanks to Margaret Thatcher, oil gushing from the North Sea and the restorative effect of the EU’s single market on the sick man of Europe. Rocketing house prices more than compensated for a few years of high interest rates. Defined-benefit pension schemes, then still the norm, ensured that retirement would be prosperous.
Whatever this generation wanted, this generation nearly always got.  ........

Is it possible that the economist forgot about some classes? 
Or is the UK mainstream really like that ??

It's probably better to forget about all these lame groups that the media likes to discuss. They're essentially just trying to stir up drama and friction between different parts of society, when they reality is the world is always changing. The people in these different groups were just taking advantage of the opportunities that were there at the time. It's actually politicians that did not do enough to address the slow changes that led to more greed by company owners which chipped away at benefits or stopped wages increasing as fast as they used to. Then there is things like the house price appreciation that older generations have had, it's still happening for new home buyers now but probably at a slower pace - they're comparing a lifetime of growth.

[philipma1957]

I think UK boomers are like most Western First World country boomers. Those who are lucky to have good health live a very nice, comfortable life. They retired at a normal age, don’t have to work until they’re near dead to pay bills & they bought their home like 40-50 years ago for far, far less than it is currently worth. In many ways it’s so much harder for young people to succeed than it was for boomers.

problem is still solvable stop fucking don’t make kids.

Just oral sex . Greatly reduces populations.

A long time ago I was 7  the year was 1964 . We the world were under 3 billions of people here we are over 8 billions of people.

All answers other than stop fucking are bullshit. Don’t make kids make the population drop.

Think of it like this in 1964 you had 3 billion people sharing 510 million square kilometers

about 6 per one square kilometer

now we are at 8 billion which is 16 per square kilometer.

Now those numbers include the oceans and the south pole.

Take them away and the numbers are really much worse.

Now my wife and I did our part to help out this problem we have zero kids.

Edit

If you take into consideration that Antartica and the oceans are 75% of the world 🌍 the  square k number drops to  125 million

that means 6 in 1964 is really 24 people per square kilometers

and that 16 in 2024 is really  64 people per square kilometer.

that number is actually worse because it still counts deserts and mountains.  the place is too fucking crowded.

the 125 million square kilo drops to 💯 million once you do mountains and deserts.

So 3 billion divide by 100 mill was 30 per sq kilo 1964
now 8 billion divide by 100 mill is 80 per sq kilo 2024

and we are still growing even with the big covid 19 kill off

[Kakmakr]

The UK paved the way for the downfall of many other 3rd world countries, when those countries tried to follow their example. The UK government could affort those huge social grants and "free" medical programs, because businesses were booming and tax income was at a all-time-high.

The 3rd world countries with high unemployment and struggling economies, thought they could do the same and they failed miserably and those economies are overburdened with debt, because the governments are giving those social benefits to their citizens to retain their votes ...even though tax income are on a decline.  

The UK have since been hit by the impact of Covid and also global conflict and their government that are helping to fund it, so they too are struggling to fund these social benefits.  

[el kaka22]

I do agree that it was almost the same in many nations. There are of course a lot of nations that had all kinds of trouble during the same period, but majority had the same. World came out a terrible war, and that meant that the population number was low, so competition for jobs were low, and the government tried their best to provide for these people as well. So they had the best life growing up, and that mean that they were dealing with a lot less economical problems then we did.

This is why it's really sad to see them expecting the same type of life and no complaints from younger generation and can't see the fact that we are not living the same life as them. My parents took vacations every weekend, if I do it even once every 2 months, I would be bankrupted right away.

[WillyAp]

The UK paved the way for the downfall of many other 3rd world countries, when those countries tried to follow their example. The UK government could affort those huge social grants and "free" medical programs, because businesses were booming and tax income was at a all-time-high.

The 3rd world countries with high unemployment and struggling economies, thought they could do the same and they failed miserably and those economies are overburdened with debt, because the governments are giving those social benefits to their citizens to retain their votes ...even though tax income are on a decline.  

Truth to be told, the politicians of those 3rd world countries play a important role in the deliverance.
Similar to the paper chieftains played when selling their own people.