Generation Gap Boomer v Millennial !!!

I think someone has mentioned the Internet. That's exactly what I think.

All the things I lived through almost passed me by. You'd see talk in papers or on the TV news but all the problems of strikes in the 70s. Aids. Possible Nuclear War attacks. War in Vietnam. Bay of Pigs. Well, they didn't have the same impact as things do today. I wonder had this pandemic occurred in the 70s what would we have done? Not sure we'd have taken the route we did.

But the Internet with social media and smart phones with cameras would have finished me off. FB and others where you have to prove you're living your best life. Posing endlessly for photos, worrying about all sorts of stuff that just never bothered us. The bullying online. In USA there have been some appalling cases where girls have taken their lives due to some photos being taken of them when they were drunk. Awful cases.

Very sad documentary on Netflix I believe about 2 girls, Audrie and Daisy. They'd been victims of an assault whilst drunk and during the court case were victims of horrendous cyber bullying. They eventually killed themselves. Just tragic.

I'm glad I grew. up without having all the stress.

I had never held a baby when my daughter was born in 1989. I was 17 I had the Miriam Stoppard baby book in one hand it was my bible. She got me through breast feeding and Terry nappy changing following her diagrams! She didn't believe you could spoil a baby with love. I just held my dd constantly because she wouldn't sleep had colic and wind!
I don't know what I would have done without Miriam's book or should I say Dr Stoppard would she be an Instagram influencer now?

I suppose Pebble Mill in the 70s and 80s then This Morning with Richard and Judy - they really kept my sanity with Deniece Robinson and Chris Steele when I was a clueless teen mum - were like parents today following influencers!

I didn't really have children so they would agree with me, which is just as well

Someone gave me that Miriam Stoppard book, I remember it had a delightful section in it about how to deal with 'backward babies'

And NotSpaghetti some people are conscientious and try doing what's right for society as well as in their own home and some people just see that as an alien concept or don't see it at all. I think I would rather think about my actions than breeze through thinking only of my self or my own.

One random example I never wrapped up xmas presents for my lot because of the waste but my dd always wraps everything beautifully because she says it adds to the excitement so my trying to be eco has maybe caused her not to be.

And yes NotSpaghetti thanks to the Greenham Common Women the 80s was a foreboding era to grow up in.

JaneJudge

Someone gave me that Miriam Stoppard book, I remember it had a delightful section in it about how to deal with 'backward babies'

Thank goodness we have evolved from such labelling.
I wonder what she thinks of that now.
Some things have moved on in such a good way. I expect she would be on Loose Women or something now with someone like Christine McGuiness who now gives a lot of online support and inspiration as a mum of autistic children. I think Christine would whack her round the head with the book.

I’m not in competition with my children. They had materially more advantages than I did, they have never had to live with the consequence of parental debt, alcohol abuse or domestic violence, they had regular family holidays and were brought up to consider the needs of others who are not so fortunate as themselves. They have fewer concerns about an imminent nuclear war and were never taught at school how to hide under their desks if such an attack took place. They were brought up to reduce/re-use/recycle as much as possible, never to litter and to be kind. They were raised by Christian parents in a household that included people from other faiths, countries and cultures and were always encouraged to think for themselves and make their own decisions. They were also encouraged to change their minds if circumstances changed and not be tied to the choices they made in their youth.

As a consequence of all of the above they have very close relationships with each other and with us, but they have their own ways, distinct from ours, of thinking and doing things. They have a great deal of respect for us and understand that we are all shaped by many differing factors, only one of which is the generation into which we are born.

I like my children a lot. ?

i am right at the end of the boomers born in 63 to a 17 year old married woman who was not pregnant when she married....lol but i do not feel or think like a lot of the older boomers, my son is a millennial, he was not interested in further education and went straight into work, he has been lucky and has never been on benefit or had any debts, does not ever want loans or credit cards and is not a worrier, but my dil worries all the time, my son has the same laid back sarcastic sense of humour as me.

growstuff

It's the opposite for me. I'm far closer to my children than I ever was to my parents, despite a much bigger age gap.

Me too. We can discuss pretty much anything which was not the case with my parents ! Also far more physical affection.

Like Lucca, SueDonim and growstuff I find I much more on a wavelength with my children (and I'm pretty sure it is mutual) than I was with my parents.

I could not have told my parents that I was living with my boyfriend or share any details about pregnancy, miscarriages and births. My friends were received courteously but my parents couldn't hold much of a conversation with them, let alone any silly banter like I did with my kids' friends.

I can't relate to most of you, I was born in 54 and had a great relationship with both parents. We talked openly about anything and everything, nothing was off limits. I clearly learnt from them and have equally great relationships with my sons and dil. I don't think life is so different for them than it was for me, except I'm still around to lend a hand if needs be and my parents were long gone before y kids were born. I just think we all have our own issues to deal with and it's how you deal with them that matters. If you don't like your life take steps to change it. I never had a job for life and nor have my kids but they're adaptable and they can change direction when required. As for holidays and material things I had expensive holidays and so do they, we've all bought whatever we want when we want it. I'd say our lives have been pretty similar in many ways.

Zoejory I found your post fascinating because my personal experience is the exact opposite to yours.

I was always interested in the news from a very young ageand fully engaged with all the major news stories. The Bay of Pigs incident truly had me very very worried, likewise the war in Vietnam. I was politically active.

What internet we look at is entirely within our own control. I am on FaceBook, although I do not contribute much and my friends are widely diverse and include some of DC's friends, but none of them are Best Lifers, My Facebook page is full of comments on work, funny experiences, reviews of things people have seen and done - like getting a train from North Hertfordshire to Chichester - A campaign over some new building in our village. photographs of family grave stones. Just the trivia and minutae of everyday life. Of course there are pictures of people doing things, but none of our friends go on expensive and exotic holidays, so holiday snaps will be wildlife in the UK, children playing in the sea - in Suffolk or north Yorkshire, or visiting yet another church.

We have control over what we look at online. My first port of call is always the news sites, and newspapers to back them up, then Gransnet, then Facebook. After that I have better uses for my time and use the internet purely for information, whether sourcing some curtain poles or researching for family history.

I had an interesting thought. Just saw an article that said that the generational gap intensified in the 1960's. Which is when the Boomer generation came of age. The 1960's was a decade of huge societal change. Those in the 1960's were vocal and active IMO (I didn't live through them) Boomers then raised their children, the Millennials, with those same convictions that caused the societal change. Now they wonder why the Millennials are so vocal and active?

I am Gen X and am raising Gen Z. I find that most Gen Z are much more laid back, similar to how Gen X is. They also think Millennials are a bit much.

Anyhow, just a theory and of course a generalization of the stereotypes of generations. Every person is unique in each generation, so what applies to one may not to another.

I also fully believe that these generational conflicts are perpetuated by the media. Anything to cause discord which leads to higher ratings.

I have read this thread with interest and think this whole splitting up of people into "types" according to when they were born is obviously nonsense.

The OP wanted to know if the gap is wider with regard to attitudes than its been between previous generations ?
I think the answer is "it depends on your family and how you were brought up".
So, for instance, I don't think my children are more vocal and active than my husband and I were. Some maybe, some definitely not.

Of course it's easier to be "active" from home these days so maybe more people can easily do something.

Katie59

Our expectations were quite limited, for most work at 16, marriage, family, as the years went on we have exceeded those expectations. Now expectations are high, goals difficult to achieve, extended education to 18 has done nothing to prepare students for employment and half the graduates are not doing graduate work.

There are plenty of jobs but nobody wants to do the boring repetitive work that entails, their expectations are higher, they want exciting creative employment, sorry guys life ain’t like that. Now migrant labour is going to be restricted maybe that will change.

Really, work ethic should come from parents also. Stay at school or work, or apprenticeship, no lounging around town. 6th form grandchild, happily working in dead end job, whilst studying, prepares them for the real world, gets a good wage, she can save, meets all sorts, until they go to Uni. Some do, some will always find an excuse not too.

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'.

Never forget how high mortgage interest rates were from late 1960s to late 1990s.

We are currently negotiating an interest only mortgage to finance an extension. The amount is a small fraction of the houses current value, but is still more than we ever borrowed when we were first buying it. Even if we had a repaymet mortgage, the monthly payment would be barely half what we paid when we were house purchasers.

Current high house prices would drop like a stone if mortgage interest rates went up to 10%. but would be no more affordable because it is the monthly payment that decides how much people can pay, so the larger the interst element of the monthlypayment, the less there is to finance the house.

When I was young most people were really poor by today’s standards because of World War 2. Some kids didn’t get enough to eat and most didn’t get many new clothes or shoes. You would stuff newspaper in your shoes to cover holes. We had a house, we were lucky, but the floors were bare and uncarpeted. No phones, fridges or washing machines. It changed in the late 50s ,early 60 s. for many. I guess we look at some of the younger ones in their 40 s and think they had it all. Big houses, lots of mod cons and private schools. The young generation now aged in their 20s have it harder and stay home a lot longer because of house and rent costs.

Current high house prices would drop like a stone if mortgage interest rates went up to 10%. but would be no more affordable because it is the monthly payment that decides how much people can pay, so the larger the interst element of the monthlypayment, the less there is to finance the house.

They didn't drop back then though. As I said in my post, we were paying 16% at one point, and prices were still rising. People were desperate to buy before prices rose again - it made no sense to wait and save for another year, as you couldn't save enough to cover the rise in prices. It went on for some time. When we wanted to buy a bigger house to have a family we faced the same situation. People were gazumping, so even if you found something suitable for sale, had an offer accepted and paid for the survey there was no guarantee that you would be able to complete, and if you didn't, there was a strong chance that you'd have to rethink what you could afford.

When it crashed, a lot of people were paying way over the odds for houses they couldn't really afford, and it's only in some areas of the country that the shortfall was made up fairly quickly and turned into profits.

I can see that on paper it looks as though our generation was lucky with housing, but there are huge geographical differences in how that luck was spread.

As regards generational differences - I can't do the sums, but it would be interesting to see the difference in repayments on a house worth £30k at 16% interest, and one worth £300k at 1%, and then see them as a percentage of average earnings.

Another impact of all of that is that those paying high interest mortgages would have been unable to save (or they would have paid them off) at the high interest rates. Early Boomers, who would be paying far less, as they would be further into their mortgage terms on houses for which they'd paid less, would be able to save at 15/16% interest (if they could afford to save), whereas the 'late Boomers' paid off their mortgages to find that savings were attracting very low rates.

Thanks doodledog I enjoyed reading your posts.

freedomfromthepast I understand what you are saying but probably the majority of boomers had Gen X children. I know later boomers have had millenials too. I'm Gen X and I have 2 Millenials and 1 Gen Z I get on with all equally but in different ways. I think I brought the millenials up more materiastically and although they were young in the 1990s recession the 2008 crash probably affected the direction I took my Gen Z child in. Then I also was given a Gen Z grandchild and he gets on with his Aunty really well sense of humour etc.
I read a while ago and can't prove it that Gen X parents brought up there millenials to be more independent than boomers did.

Also early Boomers possibly had stricter parents who had been brought up by Victorians as well as the effect of the wars and depression.

I like being Gen X I feel we are independent and aloof!

Following on from Doodledog I know we talk about the cost of houses today but I cannot comprehend the wages many families have coming in.
I have never earned more than average or more than I have paid out. All my children earn a lot more than me even though I work fulltime - which obviously I am glad they have a decent wage.

Things I haven't heard whispered for a long time ...

"Have you heard. Her daughter's living in sin."

"She's having an illegitimate baby, you know "

Born in 1947 to parents aged 21.
Benefited from free health care orange juice and grammar school education
Didn't go to uni but moved to London in 1966 (the day England won the World Cup)
Living in rented accommodation, paying 1/3 of salary on rent, like many others of my age. So couldn't afford to save up for a deposit
Took on temporary jobs during my 2 weeks summer holidays because couldn't afford to go away
Upside - loved living in London - much smaller place then. Lots o music venues which didn't cost a fortune to get in. If they were art of a pub the cost was often a more expensive beer.
Riots in the 60's against Vietnam in Trafalgar Square. Much worse in America.
Met OH in 1968 when we were 21. Still together.
Changed career when I was 26 - fell into accountancy. At that time 3% of those going into articles were female. Same percentage applied to law
Bought first house in 1979. 1/2 the deposit was my tax savings (I was freelance by then) and the other half came from my Dad who had just inherited from his mother.
OH worked 7 days per week between his business and the house for 3 or 4 years.
Went to work for a top 3 firm in 1983.
Moved to Suffolk at the beginning of 1987. My job moved to Milton Keynes and didn't want to continue commuting to London so left my job in July of that year.
Job hunting was difficult. I was considered to be too old at 40.
Life had its ups and downs after that - same as most peoples.
Don't have children and father died when I was 34 and mother already had Alzheimers. So haven't had the responsibility for looking after aged parents.

Overall life has been pretty good. We're not rich but not poor either. Neither of us have wanted expensive cars or jewellery. We spent surplus money on going to concerts, ballet and city holidays, or else the use of friends' homes in France or sharing gites with other friends in Italy. So we didn't want expensive long haul holidays.

We had so much freedom when we were children, unlike most children today who have suffered as a result because it seems that many haven't been able to cope with the freedom that came with growing up.

Doodledog prices didn't drop then because interest rates were slowly rising, plus incomes were also rising and women were coming back or staying in the workforce so household incomes were rising further. Lenders also had very lax lending rules and many people were lent far more money than they could afford to repay. Also, the great house price and interest rate rise of the 1980s, was followed by a huge housing price slump with mass repossessions. In 1993 DD bought a flat in London for half the price the flat had been sold for in 1988. Prices did not start to pick up again until about 1995. This was when DC both bought their first homes and benefitted from buying at the bottom of the market.

What I said applies specifically to the current situation where mortgage rates are only a couple of a %. If from the !st October they went up to 10 - 12 %, prices would have to fall because lenders have much tighter lending rules now and how much hey will permit borrowers to borrow is base on how much they can afford to pay back each month, not how much a house costs.

Monthly mortgage payments are a combination of interest rate and capital repayment and the amount any one can pay back is fixed. If a mortgage payment for a certain person is fixed at £1,000 a month and £150 is the monthly interest rate, £850 is available to go towards repaying the capital cost of the house over the length of the mortgage and they could afford to borrow, say £250,000. If interest rates go up to £500 a month, the amount available to repay the capital cost falls to £500 a month and the amount they can borrow falls to about £150,000.

So they must find a cheaper house or negotiate a price reduction on the house they want. For those already in houses, their monthly mortgage payment will double, if not immediately when their fixed rate ends. many will not be able to manage the payment so will need to sell. flooding the market with property to sell, which will also drive prices down.

In fact a situation would develop like 1988, with repossessions and house prices dropping.