Fallingstar
Have raised this before on another thread. Is quite an age difference in the group of older people labelled baby boomers. Some of us are old enough to have retired and received a state pension aged 60, as well as a bus pass. But for those born in the early 1960s up to 1964 they will have to wait until they are 67 to get a state pension and a bus pass throughout most of England. They will not enjoy what many of us have enjoyed having to work for longer, sometimes with ill health. A point worth noting when all baby boomers are lumped together.
That's what I always think, Fallingstar. I resent the categorising of people based on birth dates. It was a marketing tool, and I can see how it would work for that, but as a sociological view it is lazy and inaccurate. As you say, there is a huge difference in the lifestyles and life chances of a woman born in 1945 in Middlesborough and a man born in 1965 in Windsor, and calling them both 'Boomers' as though they will have had similar lives and experiences is reductive to say the least.
Earlier Boomers had grammar schools, university expansion, secure jobs with things like day release, generous pension schemes and (for women) retirement at 60, but feminism hadn't taken hold, and there were few nurseries of creches. Late ones had comprehensives, mass unemployment, higher house prices and a big hike in the SPA, but childcare was available, if expensive. It's not as simple as that, though, as so much depends on things like sex, social class, geographical area/opportunities and so on.
It's a deliberate way of turning generations against one another, so that there is less opposition to measures that affect 'the others', whether that means cutting pensions or in-work benefits.
It's not helped by people who ignore nuances, either. As we all know, we might have had free university, but hardly anyone went, and from the other side, young people might seem to waste their money on things we did without, such as 'the latest phone' and portable coffee, but the main reason we did without them was that they didn't exist. Both sides need to try to see the whole picture.
I agree with you too, Terribull that all generations have suffered from anxiety - Mother's Little Helper was written about Marianne Faithfull's mother, who was born in 1912. The difference is as you say - we weren't encouraged to wallow in it, and knew that expecting others to do our jobs when we took sick leave wasn't realistic. Parents who had lived through the war weren't likely to be accommodating either. I think that this is one way in which the welfare system could be improved, particularly as more jobs can be done from home now. People shouldn't be able to take sick leave because they feel anxious. That needs support from the NHS too, though.
David that chip on your shoulder is getting worse
. Many, many people go to university because they want to learn, because they want to mix with different people and grow up in an independent but fairly safe environment, and not because 'the only reason to go to university is to earn more than others and have a better life'. For some, earning more may be the result of becoming well-qualified, but it's far from the only motivation people have for getting an education.