The situation is hard for young people now; but I don't think that the assumption that so-called 'Boomers' had life handed to them on a plate stands up to scrutiny at all - dividing the generations is a way of taking the blame away from the government.
Within the 'Boomer generation', which actually spans at least two generations, there are big differences, even when all else is equal, which it rarely is. The older end of the group had things like MIRAS and other tax advantages if they were married (things were less rosy financially for single women), and far more families could live on one salary than now. There were grants for home improvements, and council houses were plentiful with cheap rents.
The second half of the 'boomer' generation had far less chance of getting a reasonably priced rented house, as council houses were being sold, the private rental/buy to let market was starting to gain ground, and anyone who bought a (non-council) house in the 80s will have paid mortgage rates of 15-16%. Prices rose everywhere, alongside the rising mortgage rates and rising unemployment.
My friend and I bought an identical first house when we were both newlyweds. Ours cost 70% more than theirs as we bought it three years later than they did, and it was a struggle to pay the high mortgage rates on the higher priced house.
The bubble burst soon after, when Thatcher had finished ruining industrial areas and large expanses of the country were left behind the rest. As a result, geographical inequality is far greater than generational in my experience.
The much-vaunted 'free education' benefited those who were born in the 40s and early 50s - the 'early Boomers', if you like, who grew up with grammar schools (assuming they passed the 11+, that is) and got grants and an education that gave them a chance at social mobility. For those in the later group who went to comprehensives, a 70s education was often pretty atrocious - kids were seen as factory fodder, and that is what many of them became. Even then, for early Boomers in manual work, the Unions (whether you like them or not) made sure that wages were relatively high, and most people had job security that late Boomers (and subsequent generations) were denied.
The NHS covered everything for the 'early Boomers' - free orange juice for their children, free dentistry, free prescriptions etc for all, and pensions for women at 60, whether they had worked or not. As the 'late Boomers' got older and more likely to need them, those things were phased out. Most families needed two salaries to get by, and despite having paid NI, women were told that they had to wait until 66/67 to get a pension.
The above may be a selective account, but it makes no sense to group these two groups together and assume that they had the same life experiences, as they didn't. Neither group had sex equality on pretty much any level, although the female 'late Boomers' saw slow improvements, both legally and societally.
By no means all young people are doing badly, either. Many of them do have university educations, and whilst this no longer guarantees them the advantages that their grandparents had if they went to university), if those grandparents have houses in the SE (or other better-off areas) they have a good chance of benefiting from that. Look at all the ads for equity release to get the grandchildren’s foot on the ladder.
When I look at my children's generation (born early 90s, so late Millenials), whereas fewer of them have bought houses yet, far more of them have cars, take long-haul holidays and have rented flats of their own than most of my generation did. We tended to marry younger, often straight from our parents' homes, and bought the things we wanted as we went along, rather than acquire them in advance.
It's all generalisation though. There are differences within, as well as across the groups. I agree with those who have pointed out that attitudes are not necessarily generational either. Similar to growstuff, I am 22 years younger than my parents, and 34 years older than my younger child, but much closer to them in attitude than to my parents. My early life was very different from those of my children - I didn't want them to have a childhood like mine, which wasn't materially deprived but was limited by controlling and critical parents - but they have absorbed far more of my values than I did of my parents'.