[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And you sound very sanctimonious, it's ok for you to bleat about the yoof and their perceived flaws but you have no idea of the issues they face today that past generations didn't have to deal with. There is much greater pressure now due to increased financial and economic changes.

Who reaps the rewards of education?....Society! The economy
It's dearer now to rent than buy, and who can survive on apprentice wages.. do you know what apprenticeships pay?

I'm sorry but as usual you post just smacks of an 'I'm alright jack' mentality you haven't given on thought to the changing educational or employment structures in the UK it's just one long bleat void of any logic or reason.

Talking of bleats - quite your forte!

As for apprenticeships - read the post properly - I said once qualified. If training in a valid skill you can earn a decent salary ONCE QULIFIED. Pay for your own education and buy your house - but don’t expect others to pay for it.

Besides you’e A hard left socialist aren’t - people aren’t supposed to own their own homes. They are all supposed to be the same, think the same and have the same. Owning one’s own Home that was paid for off the backs of others is very un-Corbynite Labour. Surely not another case of not practising what one preaches.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Talking of bleats - quite your forte!

As for apprenticeships - read the post properly - I said once qualified. If training in a valid skill you can earn a decent salary ONCE QULIFIED. Pay for your own education and buy your house - but don’t expect others to pay for it.

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

Others do it. Most still live at home as who the hell can afford their own home at that age.

[The Slim Reaper]

I think the golden rule is still a moral consensus that most of the world still agrees with.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So why should the average person pay for your education so you can buy a house? You want a house , you pay for it. Makes sense to me.

lol. no young person can't afford a house, no matter if they go to uni or not
the worst thing is that you must know that very well, but argue anyway to defend the indefensible,
young people of today have much harder start in life than previous generations, but saying that would prevent from lazy argument about young people wanting everything for free and supporting labour
if we can't agree on hard economic facts then there's no point prolonging this farce of a debate

[jet]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

lol. no young person can't afford a house, no matter if they go to uni or not
the worst thing is that you must know that very well, but argue anyway to defend the indefensible,
young people of today have much harder start in life than previous generations, but saying that would prevent from lazy argument about young people wanting everything for free and supporting labour
if we can't agree on hard economic facts then there's no point prolonging this farce of a debate

I don't recall many young people of my generation, the 70's, 80's and through to the 90's being abe to afford a house either until they were well established in their careers or got married and bought a house with their shared incomes.
I think young people feel the need to leave the parental home a lot earlier too than they did in previous generations, before they have advanced in their jobs and have financial stability and savings.
It's odd, but all the young people I know who are friends of my daughter or sons who didn't go to uni got a better start going straight into an apprenticeship or job than those who went to uni - many of those feel they wasted years and came out to an over crowded job market and are unemployed whereas the ones who didn't are already well established in their jobs, have experience and are earning pretty good to very good wages.
So from what I've seen, many degrees are fairly useless and employers want actual work experience and these students are years behind in that.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

In my generation most people lived at home while doing their apprenticeship or working their first job, used a fair amount of their wages to save, save and save and then when qualified and earning better money, hey presto - they got on the property ladder with their first home and a good deposit. (And there was no help to buy schemes then.)
These things take time, patience and determination. If you want something badly enough, make it happen. Whingeing uses up energy you could be putting into realising your dreams.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

lol. no young person can't afford a house, no matter if they go to uni or not
the worst thing is that you must know that very well, but argue anyway to defend the indefensible,
young people of today have much harder start in life than previous generations, but saying that would prevent from lazy argument about young people wanting everything for free and supporting labour
if we can't agree on hard economic facts then there's no point prolonging this farce of a debate

I’m not convinced it’s necessarily Harder but do believe many of this generation want everything now. This generation are not so hot on saving their money and staying in. If they want a house then, then as mentioned in another post, they will have to wait, save and do so with a partner when they have a joint income. Nothing was or is handed on a plate for most. Each generation has it’s difficulties but to whine this generation have it especially hard doesn’t wash with me.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

I don't recall many young people of my generation, the 70's, 80's and through to the 90's being abe to afford a house either until they were well established in their careers or got married and bought a house with their shared incomes.
I think young people feel the need to leave the parental home a lot earlier too than they did in previous generations, before they have advanced in their jobs and have financial stability and savings.
It's odd, but all the young people I know who are friends of my daughter or sons who didn't go to uni got a better start going straight into an apprenticeship or job than those who went to uni - many of those feel they wasted years and came out to an over crowded job market and are unemployed whereas the ones who didn't are already well established in their jobs, have experience and are earning pretty good to very good wages.
So from what I've seen, many degrees are fairly useless and employers want actual work experience and these students are years behind in that.

Excellent post Jet and completely correct.

[Ammi]

..some of this thread has made me think of the Living Years lyrics...


Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And what do you live on till you're qualified in this little utopia you have constructed in your fevered imaginings?

Your weekly wage i would imagine...not sure how much they get but if they dont smoke or take drugs they will get by.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

what assets? 25% ownership of a poky flat or mountain of student debt?
all curtesy of the older selfish generations who went to university for free and now sit pretty in their ever-increasing- in-value houses and enjoy their secure pensions

..that’s not true for many though, Twosugars...the ‘secure pensions’...I think the older generation now, as in the middle generation would be more accurate...will be a ‘new generation’ of less secure pensions...and that I think will progress or regress through younger and future generations...of my peers, there are many, many whose pensions remain uncertain...many pensions were ‘promised’ and felt to be secured...?...but the reality is quite different as the years have passed and pension companies have not been able to ‘fulfill’...then there are females of my generation who had choices ...a career or a full time parent..?...for those who chose full time parenting and then maybe went back to work part time as time progressed...’short falls’ in pensions are now having to be addressed by many...so now working full time at much older ages and large proportion of income going straight into a pension....

...anyways...just a few musings...when my dad died, my mum was fine in terms of finances...he balanced his ‘luxuries’ in life and material things in life with ensuring her financial security, should she lose him first etc...the same with my father in law...that was something that was more possible in the pensions ‘back in the day’ of my parent’s generation....for companies to ensure reasonable pensions for their employees...it was more ‘typical’...for my generation, it’s less ‘typical’...I do know a few people who have been able to secure a great pension in their retirement and have even opted for ‘early retirement’, but that I think is more ‘unique’ and exceptional to the ‘rule’...for the next generation, the younger generation...I just don’t know how a reasonable pension through a working life and employment will be possible...their thoughts will have to be more investment, type things..and then only if there is spare income to invest...spare income is always hard for younger people when they have still yet to ‘climb’ so much in all areas of their lives...there really just isn’t any sense of ‘entitlement’ there at all in my opinion, other than specific individual personalities, probably...but not as a ‘generalisation’ thing...what there is, is a huge struggle to secure ‘future’......my experience of younger people is of frustration and of ‘hopelessness’, sadly ...in many cases anyway, far too many to feel the younger generation could be termed as feeling ‘entitled’....

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by jet

So from what I've seen, many degrees are fairly useless and employers want actual work experience and these students are years behind in that.

I agree. Uni education is often useless.
Don't get it why government can't force universities to limit or expand number of places on different courses according to predicted demand by employers. I know it would take some investment but it would be better way to spend tuition money than reward vice-chancellors with obscene salaries and bonuses.
But even more important is restoring prestige of non-degree technical education and professions.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...my experience of younger people is of frustration and of ‘hopelessness’, sadly ...in many cases anyway, far too many to feel the younger generation could be termed as feeling ‘entitled’....

this

You also have a point in the rest of your post. Mine was genralizing in response to others generalizing.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I’m not convinced it’s necessarily Harder but do believe many of this generation want everything now. This generation are not so hot on saving their money and staying in. If they want a house then, then as mentioned in another post, they will have to wait, save and do so with a partner when they have a joint income. Nothing was or is handed on a plate for most. Each generation has it’s difficulties but to whine this generation have it especially hard doesn’t wash with me.

Well, housing crisis is at its worst, house price/salary ratio at its worst, job insecurity as never before, pensionable age increasing, extra debt if you go to uni. I'm sure there's more but can't think of it now.
It's just not true that they have it easy.
I fully understand why they vote Labour, Tories have nothing to offer to them.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, housing crisis is at its worst, house price/salary ratio at its worst, job insecurity as never before, pensionable age increasing, extra debt if you go to uni. I'm sure there's more but can't think of it now.
It's just not true that they have it easy.
I fully understand why they vote Labour, Tories have nothing to offer to them.

Are you kidding. Corbyn is a socialist and socialism doesn’t support home ownership. No one will own their own property if Corbyn and his cronies have their way.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, housing crisis is at its worst, house price/salary ratio at its worst, job insecurity as never before, pensionable age increasing, extra debt if you go to uni. I'm sure there's more but can't think of it now.
It's just not true that they have it easy.
I fully understand why they vote Labour, Tories have nothing to offer to them.

Young people have always voted labour until they get jobs, mortgages and children and then they vote conservative

always happens

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Young people have always voted labour until they get jobs, mortgages and children and then they vote conservative

always happens

When they finally get it.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Young people have always voted labour until they get jobs, mortgages and children and then they vote conservative

always happens

Not really, there used to be an age and education divide, the 2015 election showed that this doesnt really exist anymore, and now theres just a 'household income' divide.

Lets take a deep think about why richer people wanted tories, and not labour in tax and greed

Spoiler:

Also not surprisingly, a newspaper divide

[Twosugars]

Thought of this thread when I read this:

The three crises of liberal democracy
Ganesh Sitaraman
We now swim in dangerous waters, and we can no longer take the persistence of liberal democracy for granted
Sat 17 Mar 2018 08.00 GMT Last modified on Sat 17 Mar 2018 11.32 GMT

Over the past few years, I have frequently been reminded of David Foster Wallace’s commencement address at Kenyon College in 2005. Wallace began with the story of two fish swimming together, when an older fish swims by and says “Morning boys, how’s the water?” After the old fish swims away, one says to the other, “What the hell is water?”

Over the last year or two, there’s been a lot of discussion about what drove Trump voters and Brexit voters to the polls. There’s been concern as specific constitutional and political norms break down. But with so many people running from tweet-storm to tweet-storm, there has been comparatively less attention to what happened to the water – to the root causes of the global crisis of democracy.

Yascha Mounk’s extraordinary new book, The People versus Democracy, provides a clear, concise, persuasive, and insightful account of the conditions that made liberal democracy work – and how the breakdown in those conditions is the source of the current crisis of democracy around the world. He reveals the water in which liberal democracy has been swimming unthinkingly all these years.

The success and stability of liberal democracy, Mounk argues, was premised on three assumptions about social life. First, the citizenry had a relatively similar worldview because broadcast news, newspapers, radio, and the like were all one-to-many forms of communication in which gatekeepers ensured that news and information remained within the mainstream. This meant that even diverse communities were part of a shared conversation based on shared facts.

The second assumption was broadly-shared economic growth and relative economic equality. For most of the history of the world, there was basically no economic growth. Only since the dawn of the industrial revolution has growth skyrocketed, meaning that people could aspire to (and expect) higher living standards. And in the few decades after the second world war specifically, growth combined with low levels of economic inequality meaning that the rising tide actually did lift all boats.

The final assumption was social homogeneity. Eras of stable liberal democracies around the world, Mounk argues, have largely been characterized by relatively homogeneous populations. In Europe, for example, the rise of democracy and the breaking of empires – like the polyglot Austro-Hungarian empire – were inextricably tied to nationalism.

In the last generation, and in particular, in the last fifteen or so years, Mounk argues that all three assumptions have come under severe stress. Social media has turned any individual into a broadcaster, and allowed people to hear only the news, facts, and opinions they want to hear. This in turn has expanded the reach of radical and fringe ideas and conspiracy theories. Growth has been stagnant for the average worker for a generation, and people are anxious that their kids’ generation will make it financially. Finally, immigration has increased since the mid-twentieth century, sparking racial and cultural anxiety in locations that have seen particularly rapid increases in diversity.

The consequence, Mounk argues, is that liberal democracy is coming apart. On the one side, we see the rise of “illiberal democracies” – governments that claim to represent the “real” people of the nation, but have little regard for individual rights or constitutional norms. Many refer to these movements as populist. At the same time, others flirt with what Mounk calls “undemocratic liberalism,” a style of governance which preserves rights but at the expense of democratic engagement and accountability. Think of this as government by elite technocrats who have little faith in ordinary people.

What is so troubling is that these two responses might be mutually reinforcing. Mounk, a lecturer at Harvard University, doesn’t make much of this point, but it is worth resting on for a moment. When populists gain power, their opponents are likely to see the virtues of undemocratic liberalism. When undemocratic liberalism gains steam, many ordinary people will feel locked out and that public policies are unresponsive to their demands – pushing them to want to overthrow the elites. In the ensuing cycle, the loser is liberal democracy, which is assaulted for both its liberalism and its democracy.

One of the great strengths of Mounk’s book is that he eschews simple, singular explanations – and as a result, easy solutions. Mounk offers three directions to save liberal democracy from its enemies. The most worked out is an economic reform agenda to alleviate the unequal distribution of economic growth and mitigate the insecurity that stems from technology and globalization. The least worked out – perhaps because it is the most difficult – is an agenda to revive “civic faith,” our shared set of facts and information, trust in political institutions, and our sense of civic decency. This arena deserves more attention because it is unclear how to achieve policy changes of any kind in a polarized society that has few shared facts and whose civic muscles are atrophying.

The most interesting suggestion, however, might be Mounk’s call for imagining a new form of nationalism, which he calls “inclusive nationalism.” Instead of responding to the rise of nationalism with its polar opposite, utopian cosmopolitanism, Mounk says we need to “domesticate nationalism,” and he offer a vision for an integrated society in which nationalism unites people, rather than divides them.

All three parts of this agenda might seem uncomfortable to those who wish to continue politics as usual. Economic reforms threaten the most powerful people and interest groups in society. Restoring civic faith means breaking out of tribalism in society, politics, and education. Inclusive nationalism challenges the conventional rhetoric on both right and left. But we now swim in more dangerous waters, and we can no longer take the persistence of liberal democracy for granted.

Ganesh Sitaraman is a Guardian columnist. He is the author of The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Talking of bleats - quite your forte!

As for apprenticeships - read the post properly - I said once qualified. If training in a valid skill you can earn a decent salary ONCE QULIFIED. Pay for your own education and buy your house - but don’t expect others to pay for it.

Besides you’e A hard left socialist aren’t - people aren’t supposed to own their own homes. They are all supposed to be the same, think the same and have the same. Owning one’s own Home that was paid for off the backs of others is very un-Corbynite Labour. Surely not another case of not practising what one preaches.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Others do it. Most still live at home as who the hell can afford their own home at that age.

And... the ones who aren't lucky enough to come from a wealthy family and can't afford uni/higher education should just live at home forever?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Thought of this thread when I read this:

Wonderful article (sadly I can't quote it). I think actually, our culture is going through a sort of genesis. That in time, it'll all reach equilibrium again (in a general sense) once all the smaller chemical reactions are allowed to occur and the unstable disturbances are set off... Western has been in need for upheaval for quite a long time now. I tend to think of our societ(ies) as having undergone an narcissistic fit, when for years certain philosophical differences were left unaddressed and too many assumptions left untested...

[Twosugars]

I must agree. But I'm worried if we manage to keep it together. There's a lot of good that could be lost in the upheaval.