Meet the Fokkers
Discussion
ThunderGuts said:
Interesting view, however I'd happily wager that unless a retirement on the state is the goal, for the vast majority of the population a pension is the prudent choice.
Suggesting to your spawn that a pension doesn't matter would be very foolish.
eta: conscious we're veering marginally off topic
Methinks it's a great discussion topic (and tbh it's hard to determine what exactly the Original Topic really was, though I tend to think it was the benefit to Everyman of 'financial planning', so it's not too much of a tangent.Suggesting to your spawn that a pension doesn't matter would be very foolish.
eta: conscious we're veering marginally off topic
What you must believe, given that the majority haven't and don't (and won't) bother about pension-planning, is that the majority - and not just that but the VAST majority - aren't capable of making a prudent choice. Do you really believe that? Because I certainly couldn't agree with that. I think - especially these days - there are many alternatives to feeding a pension plan and that includes deciding whether retirement is ever going to happen. I'm sure quite a few nowadays really don't see themselves ever retiring, or even wanting to.
As to advising kids, that's another slippery slope. But I don't think over stressing the relative importance of feeding a pension is necessarily helpful to them. You certainly wouldn't, in years to come, want to hear them say that they wished they'd ignored you and done XYZ with the funds instead. It's a bit like the old inheritance thing. Working and saving to leave something to the kids. It's bulls
t really on so many levels and even a bit insulting.There's a type of person -quite a common type - who needs to fund a certain type of pension. But that product doesn't exist. And there may be 1000 reasons why it doesn't exist, but it doesn't. So they - wisely in my opinion - won't be funding a pension and possibly won't be investing in any kind of financial product at all. However, there's another very common type of person who certainly should fund a pension, because without it they are going to be lost one day.
Problem is, right now the 'wise' assumption is that a pension's good for everybody. And the only one I'd put into that category is the state 'trampoline' pension which for certain reasons doesn't seem to be understood as perfectly adequate.
Edited by drainbrain on Saturday 13th August 16:04
In the op you state refuse collectors and nurses as being badly off.
Well they have db pension schemes which are gold plated and index linked so they are better off.
Nurses can earn £50k plus and have sick pay, holiday pay and a discounted car scheme etc.
Refuse collectors dont do badly either.
The trouble is many people cant be bothered to think for themselves, save up, work harder, study or do 2 jobs butbyetbthe people that do all of thatbthen end up having to pay for the others. Thats the problem
Well they have db pension schemes which are gold plated and index linked so they are better off.
Nurses can earn £50k plus and have sick pay, holiday pay and a discounted car scheme etc.
Refuse collectors dont do badly either.
The trouble is many people cant be bothered to think for themselves, save up, work harder, study or do 2 jobs butbyetbthe people that do all of thatbthen end up having to pay for the others. Thats the problem
Your assumption is that people don't do it as choice, that assumes that they are sufficiently educated on the topic / are bothered, sadly not enough people are so.
One of the main issues now is the short term shiny shiny.
Why save £xxx/mth when I could got a shiny Golf / A3 / whatever right now! Living for now off the future - dangerous game, keep putting it off until say you get to being 40. Bugger.
One of the (many) reasons people will work till they die is insufficient saving / not starting early enough.
Lets face it, how many of us want to work until out dying day...
Your tone suggests you think that i look down on them, I don't, not sure where you got that from
The point about people not saving and doing well - is not the majority, it might be a comfort for someone middle-aged who is worrying about their later years though.
One of the main issues now is the short term shiny shiny.
Why save £xxx/mth when I could got a shiny Golf / A3 / whatever right now! Living for now off the future - dangerous game, keep putting it off until say you get to being 40. Bugger.
One of the (many) reasons people will work till they die is insufficient saving / not starting early enough.
Lets face it, how many of us want to work until out dying day...
Your tone suggests you think that i look down on them, I don't, not sure where you got that from
The point about people not saving and doing well - is not the majority, it might be a comfort for someone middle-aged who is worrying about their later years though.
ThunderGuts said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Hi - and thanks! Apologies for slip of the finger. There used to be a David Corbin at work and I've got him royally muddled with Jeremy Corbyn.... 
Was David utterly useless too? Re points above, kids should IMO be encouraged to start a pension early. They don't have to be shovelling in loads of money because with 40+ years to run investment returns should do the hard work for them. It's a good habit to form so they don't end up like the mid-40s witless who try to argue "pensions are a rip-off" of "it's too late to start now".
The new "Lifetime ISA" thing might turn out to be particularly suitable.
ThunderGuts said:
Your assumption is that people don't do it as choice, that assumes that they are sufficiently educated on the topic / are bothered, sadly not enough people are so.
One of the main issues now is the short term shiny shiny.
Why save £xxx/mth when I could got a shiny Golf / A3 / whatever right now! Living for now off the future - dangerous game, keep putting it off until say you get to being 40. Bugger.
One of the (many) reasons people will work till they die is insufficient saving / not starting early enough.
Lets face it, how many of us want to work until out dying day...
Your tone suggests you think that i look down on them, I don't, not sure where you got that from
The point about people not saving and doing well - is not the majority, it might be a comfort for someone middle-aged who is worrying about their later years though.
First of all not for one moment am I suggesting you look down on non-pensionistas. Some do, but you don't seem to at all tbh.One of the main issues now is the short term shiny shiny.
Why save £xxx/mth when I could got a shiny Golf / A3 / whatever right now! Living for now off the future - dangerous game, keep putting it off until say you get to being 40. Bugger.
One of the (many) reasons people will work till they die is insufficient saving / not starting early enough.
Lets face it, how many of us want to work until out dying day...
Your tone suggests you think that i look down on them, I don't, not sure where you got that from
The point about people not saving and doing well - is not the majority, it might be a comfort for someone middle-aged who is worrying about their later years though.
However you do consider that non-prioritising pension funding illustrates a lack of prudence and that's what I don't entirely agree with, though can appreciate that it is ONE perspective. And the reason I don't entirely agree is in part because of the range of options available to people to fund old or older age existence.
I think almost everyone is aware of pensions' existence and availability. Right now, for instance, the workplace pension is being heavily TV advertised. So I would say for sure that almost all adults are aware of the concept and how it works, and by that I mean they know a pension plan thing exists and that you pay into it for a long time and then it pays out to you when you stop working. I also think that almost every adult of even below average mental capacity and upwards understands that in theory at least the more that you store up in it the more it pays out. Perhaps anything more intricate isn't much understood but that's another story.
People prefer instant to future gratification, especially when times are tight. And why not? There's enough to worry about today never mind worrying about tomorrow as well, so why not enjoy it while you can?
And then, of course, some people do the saving and die before it's time to cash in.
And some people prosper from a myriad of sources to the point where it's immaterial whether or not they spent a lifetime funding a pension plan.
And some people live in the kind of families where they know for 100% certain that they'll be taken care of when they're older.
And some people really enjoy the interaction and stimulus of the workplace and only death is going to stop them from enjoying it.
And some people- and I'd suggest this is quite a big group-get by in old and advanced old age on the state pension and perhaps a very modest top up from a private pension.
And when you add all these 'some people' together (and there are many more that haven't been listed) suddenly you find out that MOST people have one way or another the means of living quite bearably or even comfortably in their later years without any unpleasant hardship at all.
This is only part of the story, but I hope you'll agree that there are alternatives to funding pensions in order to survive and more in old age. Many alternatives. Which is why there is not more hardship right now amongst the elderly, because I don't think there's ever been a time in the past when people did spend more on pension funding. Probably quite the opposite. And whilst I agree that it's sensible to at least have some broad idea of how one is to survive financially in later life, I also think it's perfectly reasonable for people to put much more priority on living for the day. That could be enjoying a night out or going on a holiday or spending on a car or spending on a kid to help them through uni or anything at all, really, worthwhile or not.
drainbrain said:
First of all not for one moment am I suggesting you look down on non-pensionistas. Some do, but you don't seem to at all tbh.
However you do consider that non-prioritising pension funding illustrates a lack of prudence and that's what I don't entirely agree with, though can appreciate that it is ONE perspective. And the reason I don't entirely agree is in part because of the range of options available to people to fund old or older age existence.
I think there is a misunderstanding here - I don't think people are suggesting that pensions are the only or even necessarily the best way of saving for retirement, just that people should start saving for retirement as son as possible.However you do consider that non-prioritising pension funding illustrates a lack of prudence and that's what I don't entirely agree with, though can appreciate that it is ONE perspective. And the reason I don't entirely agree is in part because of the range of options available to people to fund old or older age existence.
drainbrain said:
I think almost everyone is aware of pensions' existence and availability. Right now, for instance, the workplace pension is being heavily TV advertised. So I would say for sure that almost all adults are aware of the concept and how it works, and by that I mean they know a pension plan thing exists and that you pay into it for a long time and then it pays out to you when you stop working. I also think that almost every adult of even below average mental capacity and upwards understands that in theory at least the more that you store up in it the more it pays out. Perhaps anything more intricate isn't much understood but that's another story.
People prefer instant to future gratification, especially when times are tight. And why not? There's enough to worry about today never mind worrying about tomorrow as well, so why not enjoy it while you can?
That's fine, as long as you don't expect to be bailed out by those who deferred consumption to see for themselves.People prefer instant to future gratification, especially when times are tight. And why not? There's enough to worry about today never mind worrying about tomorrow as well, so why not enjoy it while you can?
drainbrain said:
And then, of course, some people do the saving and die before it's time to cash in.
And some people prosper from a myriad of sources to the point where it's immaterial whether or not they spent a lifetime funding a pension plan.
And some people live in the kind of families where they know for 100% certain that they'll be taken care of when they're older.
And some people really enjoy the interaction and stimulus of the workplace and only death is going to stop them from enjoying it.
And some people- and I'd suggest this is quite a big group-get by in old and advanced old age on the state pension and perhaps a very modest top up from a private pension.
And when you add all these 'some people' together (and there are many more that haven't been listed) suddenly you find out that MOST people have one way or another the means of living quite bearably or even comfortably in their later years without any unpleasant hardship at all.
I think you are being very optimistic!And some people prosper from a myriad of sources to the point where it's immaterial whether or not they spent a lifetime funding a pension plan.
And some people live in the kind of families where they know for 100% certain that they'll be taken care of when they're older.
And some people really enjoy the interaction and stimulus of the workplace and only death is going to stop them from enjoying it.
And some people- and I'd suggest this is quite a big group-get by in old and advanced old age on the state pension and perhaps a very modest top up from a private pension.
And when you add all these 'some people' together (and there are many more that haven't been listed) suddenly you find out that MOST people have one way or another the means of living quite bearably or even comfortably in their later years without any unpleasant hardship at all.
drainbrain said:
This is only part of the story, but I hope you'll agree that there are alternatives to funding pensions in order to survive and more in old age. Many alternatives. Which is why there is not more hardship right now amongst the elderly, because I don't think there's ever been a time in the past when people did spend more on pension funding. Probably quite the opposite. And whilst I agree that it's sensible to at least have some broad idea of how one is to survive financially in later life, I also think it's perfectly reasonable for people to put much more priority on living for the day. That could be enjoying a night out or going on a holiday or spending on a car or spending on a kid to help them through uni or anything at all, really, worthwhile or not.
Going on holiday, spending money on a car etc are NOT viable alternative approaches to saving for retirement!avinalarf said:
Is it only me ?
Only me that find it depressing and is quite frankly baffled ?
Only me that finds a complete lack of empathy by some of the guys on the finance forum,for the nurses,the refuse collectors,the bus drivers , the oap's living on a fixed income, and so many others that work in low paid unskilled or semi skilled jobs,but jobs that are vital for the benefit of our communities and society as a whole.
Are they jerking my chain,wind up merchants....what do you think ?
For 8 years now we've felt the effects of the banking crisis,the decrease in pension annuities,the very low returns on bank saving accounts,the inflation in housing prices and rents, in London especially,zero rate contracts that might suit some but a fair proportion want the security of a "proper" job.
Why do they refuse to grasp the fact that many average Joes are not financially savvy and even if they do have a grasp of the basics don't really want to involve themselves in the stock market or BTLs,both a popular way of increasing ones wealth,at present.
Why do they not see that the gap is widening between the haves and the others,or they do see and don't care,and that this cannot be good in the future for our society.
I know that some people are doing ok,and that others take advantage of our benefit system,that's a given but there are a fair few others that are struggling.
Well Mr Avinalarf after trawling through the above have you got your answers?Only me that find it depressing and is quite frankly baffled ?
Only me that finds a complete lack of empathy by some of the guys on the finance forum,for the nurses,the refuse collectors,the bus drivers , the oap's living on a fixed income, and so many others that work in low paid unskilled or semi skilled jobs,but jobs that are vital for the benefit of our communities and society as a whole.
Are they jerking my chain,wind up merchants....what do you think ?
For 8 years now we've felt the effects of the banking crisis,the decrease in pension annuities,the very low returns on bank saving accounts,the inflation in housing prices and rents, in London especially,zero rate contracts that might suit some but a fair proportion want the security of a "proper" job.
Why do they refuse to grasp the fact that many average Joes are not financially savvy and even if they do have a grasp of the basics don't really want to involve themselves in the stock market or BTLs,both a popular way of increasing ones wealth,at present.
Why do they not see that the gap is widening between the haves and the others,or they do see and don't care,and that this cannot be good in the future for our society.
I know that some people are doing ok,and that others take advantage of our benefit system,that's a given but there are a fair few others that are struggling.
A small but determined coterie appears to see the issues of Average Joe and the answers to his struggles as fairly clearcut. But it's not far from what (I think) you were getting at. A lack of empathy. This isn't because they're bad people, it's because they've got a fairly limited life experience and tend to see financial solutions as a 'one size fits all' matter - usually the size that fits themselves. It's also apparently generated by homespun hand-me-down philosophies from bygone times which haven't much relevance other than for the narrow band of people who generate them.
It is obviously ridiculous to expect an Average Joe youngster these days who doesn't know for sure what next week will bring to fund a pension in anticipation of possible needs 60 years hence. Because these days they've also to take the much more immediate requirement for housing into consideration too. Not to mention thinking about making provision for a potential family which is going to arrive a lot sooner than retirement. Plus cover all current needs and bills. So what actually results from even attempting to follow this ridiculous course is that nothing gets adequately provided for. And the house purchase gets further and further away and the pension ends up meaninglessly small. That's what old school 'prudence' gets you. A first time buyer house when you're middle-aged and a piffly pointless pension. Oh and let's not forget something else. Joe Average can only afford to fund this inadequate provision by foregoing all instant gratification. That means Joe on his average salary works without a holiday or a car or even a nice TV or occasional fine dinner or decent watch or nights out with his friends or anything really, because he is funding tomorrow's consumption. A tomorrow he cannot predict or know for sure will require this current sacrifice. A tomorrow to which he has become a slave.
Then there's the silly cuckoo notion that the country is full of old people living in unbearable or at best uncomfortable circumstances. Of course there are SOME old people like that. They have neither relatives nor friends, nor any means of income, and are also too "proud"(aka 'stupid') to shout out for help. I am 100% certain that they are a very very small minority. How stupid must you be in a society like ours to not cry out for help when you are starting to face the choice of hypothermia or malnutrition? And how evil must the people be who've indoctrinated you to think there's some virtue in it? And how few are the people whose relatives and friends won't help them through a bad patch - even a prolonged one.
Nobody cares (except some kind of nutter) how someone's reached straitened circumstances. Come on. If YOUR old ma's not got enough to pay the electricity bill and is going to get cut off if she doesn't pay it do YOU pay it, or do you say "Too bad. Suck it up. And just remember that expensive holiday you and dad took when you're sitting shivering. Wasn't such a good idea now eh? Bet you wish you'd put the money in a pension instead, eh". Well I think many old people get a hand from their kids when they need it. And I don't think there's any shame in it and I do think they've every right to expect it. I'd be more ashamed to have to explain why to the sorts who think it's somehow wrong.
Obviously nobody thinks (or tbh has even suggested) that satisfying immediate gratifications like holidays or cars is a substitute for planning future consumption needs, but I'd like to know this. When you're refusing your old da a sub to keep him going and reminding him that he shouldn't have squandered on a car and a holiday are you remembering that magic day when he appeared at home with the car and took you out a run in it? Or all the excitement of going to an airport and getting on a plane for the first time and feeling that real heat and all those amazing foreign sights and sounds and smells?
So Joe Average is left with a quandary. How is he to get that house? Provide for those kids? Fund that retirement? And 100 other things. All on a Joe Average salary. Yet somehow many many Joe Averages manage it. Times change and how he does it changes with them. Same old problems different solutions. And therein lies the answer. If old traditional solutions to financial problems just don't work any more regardless of how successful they've been in the past then they must be replaced with new approaches and different philosophies.
Businessmen know this far more than most. Things change, these days more rapidly than ever. And to survive the businessman must change too. Adapt to the environment. Because trying to force the old way to work isn't going to work. Many Joe Averages have already adapted but many still have to, and unfortunately for those who can't embrace this need for change there isn't going to be a going back to some silly work/save ethic from a long gone age.
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 14th August 13:16
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 14th August 13:18
drainbrain said:
...thoughtful stuff based on human experience...
Thank you drainbrain for reminding us all of the human angle here. The posters that dominate PH threads on pension provision etc stand out for the narrow and monochromatic nature of their views. I'm sure - as you say - that this is symptomatic of their own life experiences. It's good to see a post offering a broader perspective.drainbrain said:
It is obviously ridiculous to expect an Average Joe youngster these days who doesn't know for sure what next week will bring to fund a pension in anticipation of possible needs 60 years hence.
Compare and contrast,- People born in the 1950s - could they see 60 years forward?
- People born in the 1970s - could they see 60 years forward?
- People born in the 1990s - could they see 60 years forward?
drainbrain said:
Well Mr Avinalarf after trawling through the above have you got your answers?
A small but determined coterie appears to see the issues of Average Joe and the answers to his struggles as fairly clearcut. But it's not far from what (I think) you were getting at. A lack of empathy. This isn't because they're bad people, it's because they've got a fairly limited life experience and tend to see financial solutions as a 'one size fits all' matter - usually the size that fits themselves. It's also apparently generated by homespun hand-me-down philosophies from bygone times which haven't much relevance other than for the narrow band of people who generate them.
As with 'avinalarf', actually providing some evidence to support your claims would be useful...A small but determined coterie appears to see the issues of Average Joe and the answers to his struggles as fairly clearcut. But it's not far from what (I think) you were getting at. A lack of empathy. This isn't because they're bad people, it's because they've got a fairly limited life experience and tend to see financial solutions as a 'one size fits all' matter - usually the size that fits themselves. It's also apparently generated by homespun hand-me-down philosophies from bygone times which haven't much relevance other than for the narrow band of people who generate them.
drainbrain said:
It is obviously ridiculous to expect an Average Joe youngster these days who doesn't know for sure what next week will bring to fund a pension in anticipation of possible needs 60 years hence. Because these days they've also to take the much more immediate requirement for housing into consideration too. Not to mention thinking about making provision for a potential family which is going to arrive a lot sooner than retirement.
No-one has suggested otherwise - i think you're getting confused.drainbrain said:
Plus cover all current needs and bills. So what actually results from even attempting to follow this ridiculous course is that nothing gets adequately provided for. And the house purchase gets further and further away and the pension ends up meaninglessly small. That's what old school 'prudence' gets you. A first time buyer house when you're middle-aged and a piffly pointless pension. Oh and let's not forget something else. Joe Average can only afford to fund this inadequate provision by foregoing all instant gratification. That means Joe on his average salary works without a holiday or a car or even a nice TV or occasional fine dinner or decent watch or nights out with his friends or anything really, because he is funding tomorrow's consumption. A tomorrow he cannot predict or know for sure will require this current sacrifice. A tomorrow to which he has become a slave.
You are missing the point (and making a very different argument to a different discussion)!drainbrain said:
Then there's the silly cuckoo notion that the country is full of old people living in unbearable or at best uncomfortable circumstances. Of course there are SOME old people like that. They have neither relatives nor friends, nor any means of income, and are also too "proud"(aka 'stupid') to shout out for help. I am 100% certain that they are a very very small minority. How stupid must you be in a society like ours to not cry out for help when you are starting to face the choice of hypothermia or malnutrition? And how evil must the people be who've indoctrinated you to think there's some virtue in it? And how few are the people whose relatives and friends won't help them through a bad patch - even a prolonged one.
Nobody cares (except some kind of nutter) how someone's reached straitened circumstances. Come on. If YOUR old ma's not got enough to pay the electricity bill and is going to get cut off if she doesn't pay it do YOU pay it, or do you say "Too bad. Suck it up. And just remember that expensive holiday you and dad took when you're sitting shivering. Wasn't such a good idea now eh? Bet you wish you'd put the money in a pension instead, eh". Well I think many old people get a hand from their kids when they need it. And I don't think there's any shame in it and I do think they've every right to expect it. I'd be more ashamed to have to explain why to the sorts who think it's somehow wrong.
Obviously nobody thinks (or tbh has even suggested) that satisfying immediate gratifications like holidays or cars is a substitute for planning future consumption needs, but I'd like to know this. When you're refusing your old da a sub to keep him going and reminding him that he shouldn't have squandered on a car and a holiday are you remembering that magic day when he appeared at home with the car and took you out a run in it? Or all the excitement of going to an airport and getting on a plane for the first time and feeling that real heat and all those amazing foreign sights and sounds and smells?
This seems to be a random rant unrelated to any of the discussion that has gone before.Nobody cares (except some kind of nutter) how someone's reached straitened circumstances. Come on. If YOUR old ma's not got enough to pay the electricity bill and is going to get cut off if she doesn't pay it do YOU pay it, or do you say "Too bad. Suck it up. And just remember that expensive holiday you and dad took when you're sitting shivering. Wasn't such a good idea now eh? Bet you wish you'd put the money in a pension instead, eh". Well I think many old people get a hand from their kids when they need it. And I don't think there's any shame in it and I do think they've every right to expect it. I'd be more ashamed to have to explain why to the sorts who think it's somehow wrong.
Obviously nobody thinks (or tbh has even suggested) that satisfying immediate gratifications like holidays or cars is a substitute for planning future consumption needs, but I'd like to know this. When you're refusing your old da a sub to keep him going and reminding him that he shouldn't have squandered on a car and a holiday are you remembering that magic day when he appeared at home with the car and took you out a run in it? Or all the excitement of going to an airport and getting on a plane for the first time and feeling that real heat and all those amazing foreign sights and sounds and smells?
drainbrain said:
So Joe Average is left with a quandary. How is he to get that house? Provide for those kids? Fund that retirement? And 100 other things. All on a Joe Average salary. Yet somehow many many Joe Averages manage it. Times change and how he does it changes with them. Same old problems different solutions. And therein lies the answer. If old traditional solutions to financial problems just don't work any more regardless of how successful they've been in the past then they must be replaced with new approaches and different philosophies.
Businessmen know this far more than most. Things change, these days more rapidly than ever. And to survive the businessman must change too. Adapt to the environment. Because trying to force the old way to work isn't going to work. Many Joe Averages have already adapted but many still have to, and unfortunately for those who can't embrace this need for change there isn't going to be a going back to some silly work/save ethic from a long gone age.
Saving early and benefitting from compound interest (and via tax relief within a pension) isn't a 'silly work/save ethic from a long gone age', it's a sensible economic rationale that is still highly relevant.Businessmen know this far more than most. Things change, these days more rapidly than ever. And to survive the businessman must change too. Adapt to the environment. Because trying to force the old way to work isn't going to work. Many Joe Averages have already adapted but many still have to, and unfortunately for those who can't embrace this need for change there isn't going to be a going back to some silly work/save ethic from a long gone age.
HTH.
iantr said:
Thank you drainbrain for reminding us all of the human angle here. The posters that dominate PH threads on pension provision etc stand out for the narrow and monochromatic nature of their views. I'm sure - as you say - that this is symptomatic of their own life experiences. It's good to see a post offering a broader perspective.
i'm sure you are wrong (and missing the point)!Ozzie Osmond said:
Compare and contrast,
Why waste time and effort on something as BORING as a pension when you could be having FUN now.- People born in the 1950s - could they see 60 years forward?
- People born in the 1970s - could they see 60 years forward?
- People born in the 1990s - could they see 60 years forward?
For many younger people now living in the moment is the way they want to live i.e. "Stuff the future. I want to be dead by 40 anyway because when you get to 40 you might as well be dead".
And to be fair, there are so many things around today on which you can spend your money - if you want to.
Goodness! That's a surprise reaction! But it's actually Avinalarf any credit belongs to because he raised the issue, not me.
What I can say is that I feel a potential and even a desire for social change towards something that results in more material security for people. People are getting sick of constantly having to worry about a roof over their heads or how they'll live when they're old.
One aspect would be an acceptance that where possible aging/aged peoples needs are addressed by their children/family as a matter of normalcy. In many cases and societies this is already in place. And it's not that much of a shift to make it a morally obligatory norm - part of the mores. Maybe a safeguarder system for those without family.
What I can say is that I feel a potential and even a desire for social change towards something that results in more material security for people. People are getting sick of constantly having to worry about a roof over their heads or how they'll live when they're old.
One aspect would be an acceptance that where possible aging/aged peoples needs are addressed by their children/family as a matter of normalcy. In many cases and societies this is already in place. And it's not that much of a shift to make it a morally obligatory norm - part of the mores. Maybe a safeguarder system for those without family.
Eric Mc said:
drainbrain said:
People are getting sick of constantly having to worry about a roof over their heads or how they'll live when they're old.
Just about how 90% of humanity has always livedHowever, things HAVE changed. When I was young people got jobs for life. Gold watches for 50 years service. Or knew they'd be following their father into the local skilled industry. I also remember when you had no fear of leaving or losing a job because there were 10 more there to take. I really don't think that type of employment security exists much now if at all.
Drainbrain.....
Read you last post....most of which I agree with.Thats the long one addressed to me.
I note,and I say this with deep love and affection,that like me you do have a tendency to waffle on a bit and go off on seemingly unrelated tangents.
That's the way our minds work and it appears difficult for others to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
To all of you other guys....
In retrospect.....
I should have made the raison d'etre of my topic more concise.
I should not have alluded to knowing the minds of others and whether or not they were empathetic,this was presumptious and ,led the topic into other terroritory.
Read you last post....most of which I agree with.Thats the long one addressed to me.
I note,and I say this with deep love and affection,that like me you do have a tendency to waffle on a bit and go off on seemingly unrelated tangents.
That's the way our minds work and it appears difficult for others to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
To all of you other guys....
In retrospect.....
I should have made the raison d'etre of my topic more concise.
I should not have alluded to knowing the minds of others and whether or not they were empathetic,this was presumptious and ,led the topic into other terroritory.
Edited by avinalarf on Sunday 14th August 14:05
drainbrain said:
Perhaps, but are you saying if it can be addressed that it shouldn't be addressed?
However, things HAVE changed. When I was young people got jobs for life. Gold watches for 50 years service. Or knew they'd be following their father into the local skilled industry. I also remember when you had no fear of leaving or losing a job because there were 10 more there to take. I really don't think that type of employment security exists much now if at all.
And it is exactly this uncertainty that means you need to save for the future rather than only 'live for now'!!However, things HAVE changed. When I was young people got jobs for life. Gold watches for 50 years service. Or knew they'd be following their father into the local skilled industry. I also remember when you had no fear of leaving or losing a job because there were 10 more there to take. I really don't think that type of employment security exists much now if at all.
drainbrain said:
Perhaps, but are you saying if it can be addressed that it shouldn't be addressed?
However, things HAVE changed. When I was young people got jobs for life. Gold watches for 50 years service. Or knew they'd be following their father into the local skilled industry. I also remember when you had no fear of leaving or losing a job because there were 10 more there to take. I really don't think that type of employment security exists much now if at all.
Perhaps people just have to adjust their expectations. Who said that the wealth and standard of living of a people can only rise inexorably over time? However, things HAVE changed. When I was young people got jobs for life. Gold watches for 50 years service. Or knew they'd be following their father into the local skilled industry. I also remember when you had no fear of leaving or losing a job because there were 10 more there to take. I really don't think that type of employment security exists much now if at all.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff