Discussion
C70R said:
272BHP said:
GroundEffect said:
Do you really think doing it in your spare time can ever compare with a full-time Masters or PhD level education? I know the trope around here is that students are just partying for however many years they're in education but for STEM degrees it's anything but. I did 6 years and it was more than a full-time (40hr/week) for those 6 years. Hell, the teaching and tutorials alone were 40 hours. With tuition from some of the world's leading experts in my field of Aerospace Engineering.
No one without that foundation is ever going to compete. I have real experience of this now - I have moved from mechanical/aerodynamic engineering to electrical engineering. My peers who did EE as their foundation have such a leg-up it's a gap that's incredibly hard to close - even though I have engineering qualifications already.
Computer Science is just different though.No one without that foundation is ever going to compete. I have real experience of this now - I have moved from mechanical/aerodynamic engineering to electrical engineering. My peers who did EE as their foundation have such a leg-up it's a gap that's incredibly hard to close - even though I have engineering qualifications already.
We have graduate applicants that struggle to code simple algorithms in a technical interview. We also have other applicants with a well stacked GitHub account who have contributed heavily to open source projects used by thousands of companies worldwide.
Seriously, who you gonna call back?
I know some companies say that want a degree but in most cases that is entirely flexible in the face of obvious competency and talent.
Electro1980 said:
crankedup5 said:
Electro1980 said:
crankedup5 said:
Electro1980 said:
crankedup5 said:
Not sure how young people cannot improve their lives if they so wish, big World out there.
Retirement age will again increase to 67 years of age in 2028 and another increase to 68 years in 2046. Retirement is not compulsory in all circumstances, which is how it should be.
From the person who screams and cries every time someone suggests the tripple lock is unaffordable? “I’m alright Jack” through and through.Retirement age will again increase to 67 years of age in 2028 and another increase to 68 years in 2046. Retirement is not compulsory in all circumstances, which is how it should be.
I do think a safeguard is required that facilitates an increase in pensions each year that keeps the pension some sort of meaningful allowance for those that retire.
Stop your lies and misinterpretations, I think that most rational people would not interpret my post that you dug out as ‘screams and cries every time somebody suggests the triple lock is unaffordible’
Edited by crankedup5 on Monday 20th November 11:15
As I said, “I’m alright Jack”. Sums up your attitude towards many things.
Terminator X said:
NerveAgent said:
crankedup5 said:
Trades could be the work to be in for the future job prospects, thinking about the influence that A.I is going to have on the job market ?
I think you lack imagination of what AI paired other technologies could do with repetitive manual Labour tasks…TX.
Bet they can’t fix a boiler though.
Derek Smith said:
C70R said:
I love boomers.
They spend so much time in their own heads, seething with anger about "the state of [insert boomer target] nowadays", that they convince themselves that their silly opinions are actually facts.
A few inconvenient facts:
1. People with degrees earn significantly more than those without, and contribute significantly more in income tax through their lives: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191970/annual...
2. Only "being in work for 10 minutes" has nothing to do with young people being unable to afford a house. The average house price to income ratio has more than doubled since the boomers stumbled onto the housing ladder in the 70s.
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/income-to-hous...
3. Boomers are sitting on three quarters of the personal wealth in the UK, because they've had it so easy
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/proper...
But yes, going to Vietnam for a long holiday and studying at University are the real problems here.
Re: 1/. My understanding of that figure is that these are averages for graduates and non-graduates. The upper line represents lawyers, doctors, and all the other professions which pay considerably more than other jobs. In other words, a degree is no guarantee of significantly higher income.They spend so much time in their own heads, seething with anger about "the state of [insert boomer target] nowadays", that they convince themselves that their silly opinions are actually facts.
A few inconvenient facts:
1. People with degrees earn significantly more than those without, and contribute significantly more in income tax through their lives: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191970/annual...
2. Only "being in work for 10 minutes" has nothing to do with young people being unable to afford a house. The average house price to income ratio has more than doubled since the boomers stumbled onto the housing ladder in the 70s.
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/income-to-hous...
3. Boomers are sitting on three quarters of the personal wealth in the UK, because they've had it so easy
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/proper...
But yes, going to Vietnam for a long holiday and studying at University are the real problems here.
Re: 3. I was born in London and lived there with my parents until I was married. I don't want to burst your bubble - in fact I do, so hopefully I will - but there was no way I could afford a house in London back then. I had to move to a village in Kent and then commute daily.
I'm sorry to spread the inconvenience, but:
We boomers had it so much easier than most today. We didn't have mobile phones to splash out on. That was a relief to us. Deposits for houses took my fiancée and I two years to save for, so we didn't have to fork out on foreign holidays, flash cars and such. Such a let-off. In that two years, we lived with our respective parents, so didn't have all that expense of living together. Patience came so easy to us back then. For the first two years of marriage my wages went on the mortgage, so there was no temptation to buy new things, which made it so much easier to accept the generosity of friends and family. And we were so lucky with inflation pushing up the value of our house. Easy money. The fact that it pushed up the price of essentials was easy because we were so used to managing our budget. I mean, we weren't tempted with credit cards - which made life so easy. I know how much kids today struggle to pay off their credit card after they've been to IKEA. I feel so sorry for them.
We boomers don't know how lucky we are, what with the houses we bought all those years ago being worth a lot more than when we were young. We were just sitting with a calculator (actually a pencil and paper) totaling how much we were earning by not being able to afford to do much else but sit at home. We were saved from having to eat nasty foreign food because we had holidays in the UK. England in fact. Some years we went without a holiday, so were spared from sleeping in strange beds. Once I bought a frame tent, the world of more than a week's holiday a year (if that) opened up for us.
There was a massive downside; because of the world war, we were deprived the great relief of blaming others for our own problems. We just had to get over ourselves.
The rest of it is a load of waffle, akin to the "stop buying lattes and avocado on toast" nonsense that boomers come out with, which blithely ignores that it's now twice as hard to buy a house as it was in the 70s.
Edited by C70R on Monday 20th November 18:12
Derek Smith said:
C70R said:
I love boomers.
They spend so much time in their own heads, seething with anger about "the state of [insert boomer target] nowadays", that they convince themselves that their silly opinions are actually facts.
A few inconvenient facts:
1. People with degrees earn significantly more than those without, and contribute significantly more in income tax through their lives: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191970/annual...
2. Only "being in work for 10 minutes" has nothing to do with young people being unable to afford a house. The average house price to income ratio has more than doubled since the boomers stumbled onto the housing ladder in the 70s.
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/income-to-hous...
3. Boomers are sitting on three quarters of the personal wealth in the UK, because they've had it so easy
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/proper...
But yes, going to Vietnam for a long holiday and studying at University are the real problems here.
Re: 1/. My understanding of that figure is that these are averages for graduates and non-graduates. The upper line represents lawyers, doctors, and all the other professions which pay considerably more than other jobs. In other words, a degree is no guarantee of significantly higher income.They spend so much time in their own heads, seething with anger about "the state of [insert boomer target] nowadays", that they convince themselves that their silly opinions are actually facts.
A few inconvenient facts:
1. People with degrees earn significantly more than those without, and contribute significantly more in income tax through their lives: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191970/annual...
2. Only "being in work for 10 minutes" has nothing to do with young people being unable to afford a house. The average house price to income ratio has more than doubled since the boomers stumbled onto the housing ladder in the 70s.
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/income-to-hous...
3. Boomers are sitting on three quarters of the personal wealth in the UK, because they've had it so easy
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/proper...
But yes, going to Vietnam for a long holiday and studying at University are the real problems here.
Re: 3. I was born in London and lived there with my parents until I was married. I don't want to burst your bubble - in fact I do, so hopefully I will - but there was no way I could afford a house in London back then. I had to move to a village in Kent and then commute daily.
I'm sorry to spread the inconvenience, but:
We boomers had it so much easier than most today. We didn't have mobile phones to splash out on. That was a relief to us. Deposits for houses took my fiancée and I two years to save for, so we didn't have to fork out on foreign holidays, flash cars and such. Such a let-off. In that two years, we lived with our respective parents, so didn't have all that expense of living together. Patience came so easy to us back then. For the first two years of marriage my wages went on the mortgage, so there was no temptation to buy new things, which made it so much easier to accept the generosity of friends and family. And we were so lucky with inflation pushing up the value of our house. Easy money. The fact that it pushed up the price of essentials was easy because we were so used to managing our budget. I mean, we weren't tempted with credit cards - which made life so easy. I know how much kids today struggle to pay off their credit card after they've been to IKEA. I feel so sorry for them.
We boomers don't know how lucky we are, what with the houses we bought all those years ago being worth a lot more than when we were young. We were just sitting with a calculator (actually a pencil and paper) totaling how much we were earning by not being able to afford to do much else but sit at home. We were saved from having to eat nasty foreign food because we had holidays in the UK. England in fact. Some years we went without a holiday, so were spared from sleeping in strange beds. Once I bought a frame tent, the world of more than a week's holiday a year (if that) opened up for us.
There was a massive downside; because of the world war, we were deprived the great relief of blaming others for our own problems. We just had to get over ourselves.
Having said that I do feel that it is tougher now for young people treading in past footsteps. However boomer parents/grandparents are digging deep into personal savings helping their families onto the housing ladder.
C70R said:
The rest of it is a load of waffle, akin to the "stop buying lattes and avocado on toast" nonsense that boomers come out with, which blithely ignores that it's now twice as hard to buy a house as it was in the 70s.
Rubbish.Edited by C70R on Monday 20th November 18:12
The post referred to how tough it is to buy a house in London. When has it ever been easy? I couldn't afford one and I was well-paid and my wife's salary was higher than mine. We struggled, as detailed in my post. I know it is inconvenient, but saying it is nonsense is nonsense. Nowadays, there is the opportunity to have 100% mortgages, assistance, etc.
You use lattes and avocado as a derisive comment, ignoring the flash car I mentioned, but I took tea to work in a thermos. But still, what about phones, pads and the other necessities of modern life? Add them up over a year and see what that gets you. Social life? Well lucky you.
Not only that, but the problem caused by house prices is political in origin. It's got nothing to do with boomers other than as a dwindling proportion of the electorate. That's not waffle, and nor is it trying to dismiss a post with no argument. It's always, but always, been hard to buy houses. Always. London house prices have always topped the chart so buy one outside and then work your way up by buying a nearer one when the time is right or after saving up to help - radical though that seems.
It was hard for me. For more than two years after I married, I did without a car and TV, didn't put the coal-fired central heating on until the weekend. Is that you? Is that what those complaining about selfish boomers do?
The derision with which you dismiss giving up lattes shows you don't understand simple economics. Of course, £3.60 ain't going to enable you to put a deposit on a house. But two a day adds up to £2.5Kpa, or £10k for my wife and I over the two years we saved. Yet you dismissed it as contemptible. That's not to mention booze - my wife and I went tee-total for two years. That's considerably more than £10k. All of a sudden even the thickest realise that the inexpensive drink costs a fortune. Or, perhaps, costs a deposit. How about not living together? So saving on rent and other sundries? All these are 'sacrifices' we boomers often made. It's not us boomers who are buying £1k+ mobiles, nor paying more for fees. That's for mugs, and moaners.
Stop making excuses, blaming others, and start saving.
C70R said:
The rest of it is a load of waffle, akin to the "stop buying lattes and avocado on toast" nonsense that boomers come out with, which blithely ignores that it's now twice as hard to buy a house as it was in the 70s.
I don't think it is much different. Yes, houses were much cheaper but guess what? no-one got paid much money either. Edited by C70R on Monday 20th November 18:12
I remember being amazed that my Uncle got a new job that paid £100 a week in the late 70s - big numbers at the time.
Derek Smith said:
Not only that, but the problem caused by house prices is political in origin. It's got nothing to do with boomers other than as a dwindling proportion of the electorate. That's not waffle, and nor is it trying to dismiss a post with no argument. It's always, but always, been hard to buy houses. Always. London house prices have always topped the chart so buy one outside and then work your way up by buying a nearer one when the time is right or after saving up to help - radical though that seems.
It was hard for me. For more than two years after I married, I did without a car and TV, didn't put the coal-fired central heating on until the weekend. Is that you? Is that what those complaining about selfish boomers do?
The derision with which you dismiss giving up lattes shows you don't understand simple economics. Of course, £3.60 ain't going to enable you to put a deposit on a house. But two a day adds up to £2.5Kpa, or £10k for my wife and I over the two years we saved. Yet you dismissed it as contemptible. That's not to mention booze - my wife and I went tee-total for two years. That's considerably more than £10k. All of a sudden even the thickest realise that the inexpensive drink costs a fortune. Or, perhaps, costs a deposit. How about not living together? So saving on rent and other sundries? All these are 'sacrifices' we boomers often made. It's not us boomers who are buying £1k+ mobiles, nor paying more for fees. That's for mugs, and moaners.
Stop making excuses, blaming others, and start saving.
"house prices is political in origin. It's got nothing to do with boomers" - 'nothing to do with' a generational cohort that, collectively, has been the demographic centre of political and economic power for the past 40 years in this country and has been pandered to on that basis. A large part of which has been a multi-decade drive to get that cohort into home ownership and then keep the values of those homes (both as live-in homes and as rental investments) as high as possible so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about their ever-expanding generational wealth. It was hard for me. For more than two years after I married, I did without a car and TV, didn't put the coal-fired central heating on until the weekend. Is that you? Is that what those complaining about selfish boomers do?
The derision with which you dismiss giving up lattes shows you don't understand simple economics. Of course, £3.60 ain't going to enable you to put a deposit on a house. But two a day adds up to £2.5Kpa, or £10k for my wife and I over the two years we saved. Yet you dismissed it as contemptible. That's not to mention booze - my wife and I went tee-total for two years. That's considerably more than £10k. All of a sudden even the thickest realise that the inexpensive drink costs a fortune. Or, perhaps, costs a deposit. How about not living together? So saving on rent and other sundries? All these are 'sacrifices' we boomers often made. It's not us boomers who are buying £1k+ mobiles, nor paying more for fees. That's for mugs, and moaners.
Stop making excuses, blaming others, and start saving.
Re: The "give up lattes and booze" - right, you can save "considerably more than £10k per year". How does that square with average property values going up by between £15,000-22,000 per year in the 2010s and 2020s? Part of the reason why the stereotypical Gen Y/Gen Z 'fritter away' what income they have on consumer goods and life experiences is because in many cases it is near-futile to even try. You can scrub the luxuries from your budget and the resulting savings will not even keep pace with rising property values, let alone rises in other basic living costs (including rent, which will be higher than a mortgage on a similar property), and so won't build up a meaningful nestegg.
I also 'enjoy' your suggestion that young adults should just stay at home with their parents to save. Because when I was an early-20-something I remember the media being absolutely full of articles written by boomers about their feckless immature 'boomerang' millenial kids who were still living at home despite having proper jobs.
However tough you and your cohort had it when setting out, there is no way of getting away from the fact that the average property price in the UK is now about eight times the average salary (and peaked at 10x a short while ago). It was 3x the average salary in the early 1980s. Wages have not kept pace with property prices since the late 1990s and have not kept pace with living costs in general for nearly 15 years.
Speaking for myself (as a late-30-something who entered the workforce into the teeth of the Great Recession and spent his 20s trying to buy a house), I didn't have any holidays (foreign or otherwise), didn't drink (I am not literally teetotal but am effectively a non-drinker and my hot beverage of choice is tea, not coffee so I don't patronise Starbucks, Costa, Pret or any of the other stereotypical millenial bistros. My only real vice was owning/running more cars than I strictly needed. I was working a reasonably well-paid graduate job in a provincial city with essentially average property values was renting a single room in a shared house for just less than a third of my monthly net pay. I was not setting my heart on a 3-bedroom detached house in rolling acres of lawn - a 2-bed inner-suburban Victorian terrace was what I was after.
And I found that all my efforts to save were for naught, because they were either out-inflated by property prices and/or living costs or I'd see several months of savings wiped out by the need to pay for some unpredicted life expense. In the end I got onto the property ladder via the age-old deus ex machina of an unexpected inheritance. I've kept in touch with some people of a similar age to myself who I was working with in that period and only one of them now owns a house, and that was because their wife managed to land a very well-paid and secure job that enabled them to beat the headwind. The others are still renting (albeit a house rather than a room now) apart from the one who now lives in a sort of glorified garden shed on top of a cliff in Devon.
272BHP said:
I don't think it is much different. Yes, houses were much cheaper but guess what? no-one got paid much money either.
I remember being amazed that my Uncle got a new job that paid £100 a week in the late 70s - big numbers at the time.
£100 per week is slightly over £5000 per year. In 1978 the average house price was £15,200 - so almost exactly 3x your uncle's salary. Currently the average house price is worth slightly eight times the average salary.I remember being amazed that my Uncle got a new job that paid £100 a week in the late 70s - big numbers at the time.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 20th November 19:55
Derek Smith said:
C70R said:
The rest of it is a load of waffle, akin to the "stop buying lattes and avocado on toast" nonsense that boomers come out with, which blithely ignores that it's now twice as hard to buy a house as it was in the 70s.
Rubbish.Edited by C70R on Monday 20th November 18:12
The post referred to how tough it is to buy a house in London. When has it ever been easy? I couldn't afford one and I was well-paid and my wife's salary was higher than mine. We struggled, as detailed in my post. I know it is inconvenient, but saying it is nonsense is nonsense. Nowadays, there is the opportunity to have 100% mortgages, assistance, etc.
You use lattes and avocado as a derisive comment, ignoring the flash car I mentioned, but I took tea to work in a thermos. But still, what about phones, pads and the other necessities of modern life? Add them up over a year and see what that gets you. Social life? Well lucky you.
Not only that, but the problem caused by house prices is political in origin. It's got nothing to do with boomers other than as a dwindling proportion of the electorate. That's not waffle, and nor is it trying to dismiss a post with no argument. It's always, but always, been hard to buy houses. Always. London house prices have always topped the chart so buy one outside and then work your way up by buying a nearer one when the time is right or after saving up to help - radical though that seems.
It was hard for me. For more than two years after I married, I did without a car and TV, didn't put the coal-fired central heating on until the weekend. Is that you? Is that what those complaining about selfish boomers do?
The derision with which you dismiss giving up lattes shows you don't understand simple economics. Of course, £3.60 ain't going to enable you to put a deposit on a house. But two a day adds up to £2.5Kpa, or £10k for my wife and I over the two years we saved. Yet you dismissed it as contemptible. That's not to mention booze - my wife and I went tee-total for two years. That's considerably more than £10k. All of a sudden even the thickest realise that the inexpensive drink costs a fortune. Or, perhaps, costs a deposit. How about not living together? So saving on rent and other sundries? All these are 'sacrifices' we boomers often made. It's not us boomers who are buying £1k+ mobiles, nor paying more for fees. That's for mugs, and moaners.
Stop making excuses, blaming others, and start saving.
I can’t recall Government ‘help to buy’ for example being available to me during the 1970’s.
However, I say again I believe it is tougher now to buy ones own first home now than at any time in the past. However, It’s a good job boomers are gifting cash for deposits on houses to their adult children.
crankedup5 said:
I can’t recall Government ‘help to buy’ for example being available to me during the 1970’s.
It was called the "right to buy" and was brought in by Thatcher in 1980 as part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1980Derek Smith said:
Stuff and then there’s this…
Stop making excuses, blaming others, and start saving.
C’mon Derek. There’s a bit of nonsense posted there.Stop making excuses, blaming others, and start saving.
Yep, you have to save and you will struggle at the beginning - that’s all part of starting out but, and it’s a huge but, housing was relatively affordable for someone buying in London in the nineties when I first bought.
My first house in Walthamstow was a 2 bed terrace for £57k. Our combined salary at the time was £20k (1994 prices). I did an average job for an average wage and I was able to get on the ladder. We still had to save like mad for the deposit but we are talking around £7.5k if I remember correctly.
The same house today costs around £550-600k. How have wages risen in comparison? What’s the deposit needed to secure a property at that price? How many avacados on toast or fancy phone contracts will you have to give up to get a deposit to buy that?
People who say just save more are totally disconnected with how house prices have gone completely mental especially in London.
Edited by valiant on Monday 20th November 20:52
2xChevrons said:
£100 per week is slightly over £5000 per year. In 1978 the average house price was £15,200 - so almost exactly 3x your uncle's salary. Currently the average house price is worth slightly eight times the average salary.
Figures are not directly comparable though if you are going by multiples of one persons wage. Life is very different now and house prices reflect that.But the main thing that hits is that life for the young now is thankfully nowhere near as bleak as it was when I was young. If you think differently then frankly you have no idea because you weren't there, the sense of despair was palpable across the country.
The young these days complain about the difficulty of owning a house in the future. In the 70s/80s we feared never finding a job - in that respect the young are blessed indeed.
CraigyMc said:
crankedup5 said:
I can’t recall Government ‘help to buy’ for example being available to me during the 1970’s.
It was called the "right to buy" and was brought in by Thatcher in 1980 as part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1980I was talking about the help to buy scheme for first time buyers from the private sector.
crankedup5 said:
CraigyMc said:
crankedup5 said:
I can’t recall Government ‘help to buy’ for example being available to me during the 1970’s.
It was called the "right to buy" and was brought in by Thatcher in 1980 as part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1980I was talking about the help to buy scheme for first time buyers from the private sector.
Killboy said:
Bill said:
It does seem that most of those moaning about degrees don't actually understand what university is about.
Seems like the "school of life" is a bit limited.
The points that I was trying, unsuccessfully, to make earlier on is that for those of us who simply aren’t bright enough for education, let alone higher education, wouldn’t it be better if there were trade schools available for the retards to go to at 14, especially if like me, a formal educational environment is offering nothing of value?
The second point that I was trying to make is that there is a sense that the sheer number of university graduates has perhaps devalued the achievement of graduating from university, which in turn has resulted in employers often refusing to accept candidates for even the most menial of positions unless they have a degree.
I’d consider both of my points to be valid, although I’m sure that a great many would disagree.
We're going off topic but one reason I can think of house prices rising at the pace they have...
Which you could definitely argue is a political reason. Or a reason influenced heavily by the politics of the time.
@Derek I normally take the time to read your posts on a topic as they are usually balanced and informed but on this I feel disappointed. Yes, you might have had a tough "bread and water" lifestyle when saving for a house, however the plural of anecdote is not data. It's an inescapable truth that things are significantly more difficult now than they were in your day. Regardless of where in the country you are.
Which you could definitely argue is a political reason. Or a reason influenced heavily by the politics of the time.
@Derek I normally take the time to read your posts on a topic as they are usually balanced and informed but on this I feel disappointed. Yes, you might have had a tough "bread and water" lifestyle when saving for a house, however the plural of anecdote is not data. It's an inescapable truth that things are significantly more difficult now than they were in your day. Regardless of where in the country you are.
CraigyMc said:
crankedup5 said:
CraigyMc said:
crankedup5 said:
I can’t recall Government ‘help to buy’ for example being available to me during the 1970’s.
It was called the "right to buy" and was brought in by Thatcher in 1980 as part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1980I was talking about the help to buy scheme for first time buyers from the private sector.
the tenant to buy their council owned home at a discounted price. The longer the tenant has lived in the home then the larger the discount offered. Age of tenants was and still is not a factor.
The help to buy scheme being aimed at first time home buyers.
Two distinct schemes aimed at entirely different groups of people.
I’m merely alerting you to what I had correctly posted earlier. If you are going to correct a poster with an assertion best make sure you are getting facts correct.
Edited by crankedup5 on Monday 20th November 23:17
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff