Re "How do government pensions work in the U.K.?": Two words: "Ponzi" "scheme"
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: Of course, in the U.S., the '50s-'70s was a period of significant rising prosperity for the middle class, very different from the case in the U.K., I would assume because the war was so much harder on the latter that it took a lot longer to recover. We weren't bombed, and we didn't get into the war until the end of 1941. For us, the hard times were during the Great Depression in the '30s (the boomers' parents); the war actually lifted our economy out of the Depression. Also, FWIW, the boomers' Social Security pensions are already paid for by the contributions of the previous generation, while the boomers have been paying for the Social Security of the next generation. The contributions go into and are paid out from a trust fund kept separate from the rest of the government budget (although the government borrows from it). How do government pensions work in the U.K.? (I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem with the contract between the generations here, just that some of the conditions leading to it were/are different. Of course we also have climate change and debt service and infrastructure maintenance to worry about, so that's pretty much the same.) Seraphita wrote: Interesting thread, but it's missing out on what is now the most important issue on the boomers: the contract between the generations is breaking down. The baby boomers are in danger of dumping too many problems on the younger generation. The bills are coming in but there's been a lot of kicking cans down roads, and it is the younger generation who will eventually have to pay the bills. We have a good idea of what these future costs are: the cost of climate change, of investing in the infrastructure our economy will need if we are to prosper, paying pensions when the big boomer cohort retires – on top of the cost of servicing the astronomical debt the governments (especially in the UK and the USA) have built up. There is now much mistrust between the generations, and much of what has gone wrong with our economy is a failure to get the balance right between generations. Of course, youngsters today haven't a clue of the kind of austerity those living in the fifties, sixties and seventies had to endure. I'm sure they have a completely false picture of what life was *actually* like back in the day. Let me assure you life could be very hard and insecure. On the other hand, here in the UK, most of the wealth is now concentrated in property - as the old have the property, they have the wealth; whereas the young are being priced out of the property market thanks to the terrifying rise in property prices and so the young are having to pay ludicrous prices just to rent a shitty bedsit and can't even save enough for a deposit for a mortgage . Now here's the thing: I strongly suspect that a lot of the talk about the generation gap (which has a basis in fact as I've just myself outlined) is a deliberate attempt by the ruling elite to stoke up envy between the generations. The point of that strategy is that it deflects attention from those who are *really* responsible for the mess we're in - the bankers, the politicians, the hangers-on. The talk of striking a balance *between* generations deflects us from seeing that what is needed (indeed, what has *always* been needed) is to transfer wealth from the rich to the disadvantaged. (I define the wealthy as anyone who earns more - or who has possessions worth more - than Seraphita.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: When we have beautiful weather here, temps around 70, I understand why people are willing to put up with the high cost of living in CA. OTOH I find the four seasons very appealing, just maybe a more moderate version. Some of those lists about best places to retire list San Diego as having the most ideal weather in the US. But do palm trees change color in the fall?! On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:05 PM, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: Back in the 1980s folks headed back from the cities to the small towns around where I grew up and bought the local restaurants and turned them from greasy spoons to haute cuisines. We even had "lobster nights" at the restaurant in the wide spot in the road where I grew up. I doubt if they have a Starbucks there yet but maybe the local grocery has an automated espresso maker. However I watched via Internet as house prices in even that small town got ridiculous in the late 1990s and early 00's. On 10/22/2013 10:16 AM, Share Long wrote: Some boomers have found mid sized towns with universities to be just the right balance of small town affordability and big city liveliness. Moving to such was a trend at one point. Even places with horrendous weather, like Iowa City, found themselves on lists of ideal retirements spots. On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:50 AM, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Maybe because lattes are cheaper at Starbucks in dusty little towns? http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21078363-starbucks-caught-in-chinas-crosshairs-over-posh-prices?lite http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21078363-starbucks-caught-in-chinas-crosshairs-over-posh-prices?lite On 10/22/2013 09:10 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Perhaps no urban legend has played as long and loudly as the notion that “empty nesters” are abandoning their dull lives in the suburbs for the excitement of inner city living. "...more expensive, denser cities like New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Jose, Calif., saw the worst boomer flight, suffering double-digit percentage losses." 'Where Are The Boomers Headed? Not Back To The City' http://www.forbes.com/boomers-headed-not-back-to-the-city/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/10/17/where-are-the-boomers-headed-not-back-to-the-city/
