Should all 25 year olds be given a £10,000 helping hand from the government?

Its a possibility....good idea or bad?

"A minimum inheritance of £10,000 should be available for 25-year-olds in the UK, a think tank has suggested.
Tax reforms and a sell-off of some assets including the Government stake in RBS could help create a Citizens' Wealth Fund, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said.
The fund could be worth £186 billion by 2029/30, if started from 2020/21, a report by the left-of-centre think tank's Commission on Economic Justice concluded.
The proposal could help address what the think tank described as growing inequality in the UK, "giving everyone a stake and a say in the economy".




https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/25-year-olds-should-10000-12289850

Where's the money going to come from. We never had handouts, we did it ourselves, so should they.

How about the tax payers getting a say and a stake in the economy?

Do they mean money only for those who are 25, or 25 upwards?

I think it’s a good idea but there should be conditions set. Not sure what they might be, but there should be some conditions, for example, the deposit for a house or accommodation.

Might be better off ensuring people get paid a proper wage and doing something about rental rates for properties, I can't see much being done for the silly money people are selling houses for in places like London. A half decent interest rate would help most people and get them interested in saving for a deposit on a house, I think, when we started saving it was 15% and we put every penny we could spare in the bank and had a reasonable amount of interest each year, now the amount we had 'working for us' this time last year is only slightly less than what we have this year.
I don't see many bankers going short, even the ones who were doing dodgy deals, which is probably the majority of them.

another lefty bribe to the young......

Lord Foul wrote:another lefty bribe to the young......

Can you see nothing but eeevil Mr Grumpy?

I,m just thinking of all the money that would go on Cars, booze, drugs, gambling etc !

Most older people have money because they've worked hard for every penny and come from a generation that embraced hard work and saving. There was no three or four years larking around in Uni, followed by a gap year, all funded by the Bank of Mum and Dad. Many of us left school at 15 and went straight into work. There were no credit cards. No fast loans. You saved up or you didn't get it!

I know it's hard for kids to get a mortgage etc, but that's not the fault of the older generation...that's the fault of greedy banks and the way the housing market has been allowed to escalate.

They are saying that the 10K would have to be spent wisely. Well, try policing that one.

If they want to help young people get a start, bring back 100 percent mortgages, and free University education and create well paid apprenticeships. Make it easier for people to get jobs, instead of creating black holes of red tape and interview/job criteria that are impossible to meet. Sadly, I think most kids go to Uni because it's in vogue rather than they really care about a degree. They do it because everybody else does.

nicko wrote:I,m just thinking of all the money that would go on Cars,  booze, drugs, gambling etc !

That's exactly where it would go if there were no limitations. They are saying it must be spent on either education or a mortgage.

I think it's a bad idea too.
People talk as if the older generation had it easy, in my experience the harder they worked the easier it was.
.
We had no handouts, and by the time todays young people are working full time, we had held down a job for years.

If the government has found billions to give away, far better to cut uni fees, or plough more money into the failing NHS or police force.

Vintage wrote:Might be better off ensuring people get paid a proper wage and doing something about rental rates for properties, I can't see much being done for the silly money people are selling houses for in places like London. A half decent interest rate would help most people and get them interested in saving for a deposit on a house, I think, when we started saving it was 15% and we put every penny we could spare in the bank and had a reasonable amount of interest each year, now the amount we had 'working for us' this time last year is only slightly less than what we have this year.
I don't see many bankers going short, even the ones who were doing dodgy deals, which is probably the majority of them.

I quite agree.
Bankers are a corrupt lot, getting in huge debt, bailed out by the government, paying themelves multi million pound bonuses, and cutting inerest rates to next to nothing....this has been happeningfor years.

Cheaper affordable housing, not only in London but throughout the UK should be made available, that would be more productive than giving 25 year olds a 10 grand windfall, which would just enable some of them to do sweet sod all in more comfort.

magica wrote:Where's the money going to come from. We never had handouts, we did it ourselves, so should they.

the economy YOU had was literally a give away compared with today.

funny thing when you run a economy on a policy of ever increasing competition that after a few decades it is a LOT more competitive (who'd have thought )

Syl wrote:I think it's a bad idea too.
People talk as if the older generation had it easy, in my experience the harder they worked the easier it was.
.
We had no handouts, and by the time todays young people are working full time, we had held down a job for years.

If the government has found billions to give away, far better to cut uni fees, or plough more money into the failing NHS or police force.

and how many times the Average wage was the cost of the education you needed to get an ENTRY level job?



And everything that has been Privatized over the years WHERE HANDOUTS prior to privatization

^^^^^^^^


Yep, anyone who can get a $150k-plus salary/income (don't forget that taxes and expenses have to be accounted for, before having a disposable income of 80k a year to repay the loan), a spouse to support them, and a grannie to provide cheap/free board, can afford to repay a $220k in less than three years..

No wukkin' furries  !!!

That nonsense reminds me of those right wing/conservative/libertarian politicians who regularly claim that all somebody has to do, to lift themselves out of poverty, is "get a better paying job  !"

Arrogant materialist geraniums..

Re: the O/P :

I reckon it would be better, fairer, and more equitable, if that £10,000 was used to further subsidise (i.e. not replace..) such things as healthcare, education, aged care and the likes, across a persons lifespan...

Rather than simply being given as a handout, where many of the recipients would simply "piss it away" within a year or two..

veya_victaous wrote:

magica wrote:Where's the money going to come from. We never had handouts, we did it ourselves, so should they.

the economy YOU had was literally a give away compared with today.

funny thing when you run a economy on a policy of ever increasing competition that after a few decades it is a LOT more competitive (who'd have thought )

Unfortunately for the majority, though --  despite all of the bullshit being regularly spouted by lazy millenials and Y-Gen's --  some 70 -->> 80% of 'babyboomers' did not realise even half of those "benefits" that todays youngsters like to imagine;  but often could only watch on as politicians and big businesses regularly fucked over our collective world...

* Only around 20% ever went on to univesity studies, (and, as for "free" uni' study --  that only lasted from 1973 until 1988 here in Oz..);

* Over 40% couldn't afford housing in many areas;

* Half the babyboomers never knew the meaning of genuine "job security";

* 'Universal Healthcare' was a pipedream until the 1970s and 80s --  and still is in the USA.

veya_victaous wrote:

magica wrote:Where's the money going to come from. We never had handouts, we did it ourselves, so should they.

the economy YOU had was literally a give away compared with today.

funny thing when you run a economy on a policy of ever increasing competition that after a few decades it is a LOT more competitive (who'd have thought )

Really? In 1989 the interest rate on mortgages was a whopping 15 percent. In the seventies it was 17 percent. Today, it's around 5 percent or less. In the seventies we had the three day week working restriction, power cuts and you got fuck all on the dole. Certainly not enough to keep you in Sky TV and fags. Back then you rented a TV because it was too expensive to buy one. In relative terms, many things these days are dirt cheap compared to what we had to pay out back then. In the 1990s unemployment was at an all time high at 10 percent, today it's at 4 percent. We still have elderly in this country dying of hypothermia...hardly better off than today's youth. And most, if not all of the older generation will find all their money, if they have it, will go toward paying nursing home fees, if they end up there. Hardly tripping the light fantastic, is it?

David Willetts the executive chairman of the Resolution Foundation, was the person responsible for hiking up Uni fees in the first place!

40 years ago, when you left school, or Uni, you worked. There was no gap year, no travelling the world (which incidentally, has never been cheaper or easier), no scrounging off mum and dad, no spending hours on your smart phone and social media. Most people were settled and married and working by 25. You knuckled down and did the graft if you wanted to go on holiday, buy luxuries or have a good time. These older people being demonised have worked like this all their lives, and if they appear affluent, that's why. Why should they be penalised and taxed further to fund a generation who've had it easier in many ways than they ever did?

And...most importantly of all...this whole scheme has got to be a money making machine for someone somewhere.

Here's a link to just how much easier and cheaper it is today to afford luxuries we take for granted.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12007420/How-much-did-these-classic-goods-cost-40-years-ago.html

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:I think it's a bad idea too.
People talk as if the older generation had it easy, in my experience the harder they worked the easier it was.
.
We had no handouts, and by the time todays young people are working full time, we had held down a job for years.

If the government has found billions to give away, far better to cut uni fees, or plough more money into the failing NHS or police force.

and how many times the Average wage was the cost of the education you needed to get an ENTRY level job?



And everything that has been Privatized over the years WHERE HANDOUTS prior to privatization

Many of us 'babyboomers' who snotty nosed youngsters seem to think had the world on a plate were too poor to carry on in education after the age of 15.
They had no choice other than to leave school and get a full time job to help support the family.
This they did till they could manage to afford a mortgage, where the interest rate (when we bought in the early 80's) soared to 17%, leaving many forced to sell and in negative equity.

I think uni fees should be scrapped in the UK...England especially has very high fees that mount up....far better the money be spent here.
I also think rather than waste time at university doing totally useless subjects many youngsters would benefit more from learning a trade....so bring back decent government funded apprenticeships.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


the economy YOU had was literally a give away compared with today.

funny thing when you run a economy on a policy of ever increasing competition that after a few decades it is a LOT more competitive (who'd have thought )

Really?  In 1989 the interest rate on mortgages was a whopping 15 percent.    In the seventies it was 17 percent.   Today, it's around 5 percent or less.     In the seventies we had the three day week working restriction, power cuts and you got fuck all on the dole.   Certainly not enough to keep you in Sky TV and fags.   Back then you rented a TV because it was too expensive to buy one.   In relative terms, many things these days are dirt cheap compared to what we had to pay out back then.   In the 1990s unemployment was at an all time high at 10 percent, today it's at 4 percent.    We still have elderly in this country dying of hypothermia...hardly better off than today's youth.   And most, if not all of the older generation will find all their money, if they have it, will go toward paying nursing home fees, if they end up there.    Hardly tripping the light fantastic, is it?  

David Willetts the executive chairman of the Resolution Foundation, was the person responsible for hiking up Uni fees in the first place!

40 years ago, when you left school, or Uni, you worked.    There was no gap year, no travelling the world (which incidentally, has never been cheaper or easier), no scrounging off mum and dad, no spending hours on your smart phone and social media.    Most people were settled and married and working by 25.   You knuckled down and did the graft if you wanted to go on holiday, buy luxuries or have a good time.      These older people being demonised have worked like this all their lives, and if they appear affluent, that's why.   Why should they be penalised and taxed further to fund a generation who've had it easier in many ways than they ever did?  

And...most importantly of all...this whole scheme has got to be a money making machine for someone somewhere.

Yes, yes and yes again.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Really?  In 1989 the interest rate on mortgages was a whopping 15 percent.    In the seventies it was 17 percent.   Today, it's around 5 percent or less.     In the seventies we had the three day week working restriction, power cuts and you got fuck all on the dole.   Certainly not enough to keep you in Sky TV and fags.   Back then you rented a TV because it was too expensive to buy one.   In relative terms, many things these days are dirt cheap compared to what we had to pay out back then.   In the 1990s unemployment was at an all time high at 10 percent, today it's at 4 percent.    We still have elderly in this country dying of hypothermia...hardly better off than today's youth.   And most, if not all of the older generation will find all their money, if they have it, will go toward paying nursing home fees, if they end up there.    Hardly tripping the light fantastic, is it?  

David Willetts the executive chairman of the Resolution Foundation, was the person responsible for hiking up Uni fees in the first place!

40 years ago, when you left school, or Uni, you worked.    There was no gap year, no travelling the world (which incidentally, has never been cheaper or easier), no scrounging off mum and dad, no spending hours on your smart phone and social media.    Most people were settled and married and working by 25.   You knuckled down and did the graft if you wanted to go on holiday, buy luxuries or have a good time.      These older people being demonised have worked like this all their lives, and if they appear affluent, that's why.   Why should they be penalised and taxed further to fund a generation who've had it easier in many ways than they ever did?  

And...most importantly of all...this whole scheme has got to be a money making machine for someone somewhere.

Yes, yes and yes again.

I'll double those yeses.
People in the main also lived with mam and dad until they got married unless you moved away, then it would be a barely habitable 'flat' or digs (lodging with someone) not many singles bought a house or flat. You lived at home and got catered for and made a contriution to the household budget.

Vintage wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes, yes and yes again.

I'll double those yeses.
People in the main also lived with mam and dad until they got married unless you moved away, then it would be a barely habitable 'flat' or digs (lodging with someone) not many singles bought a house or flat. You lived at home and got catered for and made a contriution to the household budget.

All true.
It was Thatcher who encouraged working class people to buy, then under her government the interest rates soared to its highest ever record, which left many people in a poverty trap.

At present they are at the lowest ever.

My sister was married for five years, her and her OH working, him doing as much over time as he could before they got enough saved for a deposit. Most of my relatives lived in rented accommodation as did we, mainly private then in our case last off, council, which was luxurious to us, bathroom, indoor toilet, hot water without having to boil kettles and pans, no central heating though so still cold bedrooms. Ours were the generation of workers who were able to buy houses but it still wasn't easy for the majority of people it was difficult to save for the deposit and a long slog of doing without to keep up the mortgage payments.

Its always been hard for young people hasn't it, I don't think this generation are worse off at all....probably better off in lots of ways.

I just think people expect so much more now, the idea that you had to work hard for what you got has bypassed some....they see others with nice clothes,cars, the latest techie gadgets, etc etc....and they want it to.

Unemployment is low at the moment, interest rates, as we said, are at rock bottom, it's hard to save, but it's never been easy for the majority just starting out.

If a person cant afford to buy a house, and manage to afford the upkeep, bills, and everything else that buying a property entails, 10 grand wont help them much, so that money can imo be used far more wisely.

Syl wrote:Its always been hard for young people hasn't it, I don't think this generation are worse off at all....probably better off in lots of ways.

I just think people expect demand so much more now, the idea that you had to work hard for what you got has bypassed some....they see others with nice clothes,cars, the latest techie gadgets, etc etc....and they want it to.

Unemployment is low at the moment, interest rates, as we said, are at rock bottom, it's hard to save, but it's never been easy for the majority just starting out.

If a person cant afford to buy a house, and manage to afford the upkeep, bills, and everything else that buying a property entails, 10 grand wont help them much, so that money can imo be used far more wisely.

Hope you do not mind Syl, I changed one word, to make your reply perfect. As it was perfect in every way, except one word. As the reality is, now people in general, demand everything and do not appriciate what they do have.

Some people do demand, they think its their right, but I think the word expect was fitting too.
Either way, we agree with the general points.

One other thing that we baby boomers (the ones who are often accused by some of having it all)  have had to endure.

Sky high interest on mortgage payments when they were buying their houses, record lows on interest rates that eat away at any savings some may have worked long and hard to accrue throughout their working lives.

I agree with you Syl. We worked for everything, so too my girls and their hubs. Why should we give handouts to 25 year old, when everyone else got nothing, just work, saving and going without.

magica wrote:I agree with you Syl. We worked for everything, so too my girls and their hubs. Why should we give handouts to 25 year old, when everyone else got nothing, just work, saving and going without.

Thanks Mags.

In reality, how far would 10 grand go given individually anyway? It would just be a nice little windfall for many to piss up the wall or buy a new car. The hard graft of buying a house comes in the following 20 odd years that a mortgage lasts.

House prices going up are caused by people being able to charge what they like for their house. Obviously, they're going to get as much as they can, and those who can get a mortgage will pay for that house. The answer is to restrict the amount people can borrow. None of that is the fault of older people. Giving young people money for a mortgage will just lead to house pricing rising even more.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Re: the O/P :

I reckon it would be better, fairer, and more equitable, if that £10,000 was used to further subsidise (i.e. not replace..) such things as healthcare, education, aged care and the likes, across a persons lifespan...

Rather than simply being given as a handout, where many of the recipients would simply "piss it away" within a year or two..

Totally agree. That’s the type of “conditions” I meant when I said it was a pretty good idea, because in theory, it is a pretty good idea.

The money should maybe be put in further education for those who just would not be able to afford uni or an apprentiship but have the potential (and for something properly academic at uni) remember the days when people would go to polytechnics/colleges to do the less academic stuff, sandwich course and the like, my accountant did that as did my civil engineer cousin, so many weeks working so much time studying.
There are definately people who do need a leg up but that could be scholarships etc.

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:I think it's a bad idea too.
People talk as if the older generation had it easy, in my experience the harder they worked the easier it was.
.
We had no handouts, and by the time todays young people are working full time, we had held down a job for years.

If the government has found billions to give away, far better to cut uni fees, or plough more money into the failing NHS or police force.

and how many times the Average wage was the cost of the education you needed to get an ENTRY level job?



And everything that has been Privatized over the years WHERE HANDOUTS prior to privatization

Many of us 'babyboomers' who snotty nosed youngsters seem to think had the world on a plate were too poor to carry on in education after the age of 15.
They had no choice other than to leave school and get a full time job to help support the family.
This they did till they could manage to afford a mortgage, where the interest rate (when we bought in the early 80's) soared to 17%, leaving many forced to sell and in negative equity.

I think uni fees should be scrapped in the UK...England especially has very high fees that mount up....far better the money be spent here.
I also think rather than waste time at university doing totally useless subjects many youngsters would benefit more from learning a trade....so bring back decent government funded apprenticeships.

NOT POSSIBLE
today you can't even get a job without higher education
It's not gen Y choosing to Demand a Uni degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
it's not gen Y that have stopped providing on the job training(apprenticeships) to get a trade

The world You grew up in Doesn't exist anymore, Kids today are not so Fortunate to be able to simply get a job and work, and offshoring of work and automation is only going to make it harder


I don't think just giving everybody cash is the best solution but making that sort of fund available to be used for Education, home deposit or to start a business would do a lot to improve employment opportunities for younger generations.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many of us 'babyboomers' who snotty nosed youngsters seem to think had the world on a plate were too poor to carry on in education after the age of 15.
They had no choice other than to leave school and get a full time job to help support the family.
This they did till they could manage to afford a mortgage, where the interest rate (when we bought in the early 80's) soared to 17%, leaving many forced to sell and in negative equity.

I think uni fees should be scrapped in the UK...England especially has very high fees that mount up....far better the money be spent here.
I also think rather than waste time at university doing totally useless subjects many youngsters would benefit more from learning a trade....so bring back decent government funded apprenticeships.

NOT POSSIBLE
today you can't even get a job without higher education
It's not gen Y choosing to Demand a Uni degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
it's not gen Y that have stopped providing on the job training(apprenticeships) to get a trade

The world You grew up in Doesn't exist anymore, Kids today are not so Fortunate to be able to simply get a job and work, and offshoring of work and automation is only going to make it harder


I don't think just giving everybody cash is the best solution but making that sort of fund available to be used for Education, home deposit or to start a business would do a lot to improve employment opportunities for younger generations.

I know thats not possible today, kids cant leave education and work full time at 15, there are conditions in anyone under 18 leaving education and working full time.....which is just a way of manipulating unemployment figures imo.

  I was pointing out that unlike some people like to claim, life wasnt all perfume and roses back in the 60's....people struggled  then just as much, and in some ways  more than they do today.


The better way to use any money is to abolish uni fees which leave millions in debt of 30 grand  before they even start their working life.

I do think though as much as the oldies hate it
this is going to be necessary and there will be some people that never work because there wont be jobs for them, we will eventually have to move to something like a citizens wage simply because there wont be jobs for everyone because robots will be doing them.

policies like this are a stepping stone in that direction, which is better than the other direction (crushing poverty) which Corporate elites would prefer and Oldies are pushing society towards with silly comparisons to their lives and the bountiful times they were fortunate enough to be raised in.

veya_victaous wrote:I do think though as much as the oldies hate it
this is going to be necessary and there will be some people that never work because there wont be jobs for them, we will eventually have to move to something like a citizens wage simply because there wont be jobs for everyone because robots will be doing them.

policies like this are a stepping stone in that direction, which is better than the other direction (crushing poverty) which Corporate elites would prefer and Oldies are pushing society towards with silly comparisons to their lives and the bountiful times they were fortunate enough to be raised in.

Veya, you are one of the worst offenders for pitting oldies against youngsters, not to mention  Brits against......well everyone really.

No one wants to see young people struggle, fact is, they do and unless they are born with a silver spoon in their mouths they always will.

Throwing a few grand at them will help no one long term.... we agree on that, so I will bid you goodnight on a happy note.

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I do think though as much as the oldies hate it
this is going to be necessary and there will be some people that never work because there wont be jobs for them, we will eventually have to move to something like a citizens wage simply because there wont be jobs for everyone because robots will be doing them.

policies like this are a stepping stone in that direction, which is better than the other direction (crushing poverty) which Corporate elites would prefer and Oldies are pushing society towards with silly comparisons to their lives and the bountiful times they were fortunate enough to be raised in.

Veya, you are one of the worst offenders for pitting oldies against youngsters, not to mention  Brits against......well everyone really.

No one wants to see young people struggle, fact is, they do and unless they are born with a silver spoon in their mouths they always will.

Throwing a few grand at them will help no one long term.... we agree on that, so I will bid you goodnight on a happy note.

it's not me, it's the Media/politicians that targets the Oldies to prevent any policy that may change the current trajectory towards crushing poverty for the Majority.
there used to be a Middle class, and the Corporate elite are winning the war to kill it because they can count on the oldies to say things like 'we worked hard so they can get a job and work hard' even though the job is now in Bangladesh and pays 20 cent a week.

Goodnight

veya_victaous wrote:I do think though as much as the oldies hate it
this is going to be necessary and there will be some people that never work because there wont be jobs for them, we will eventually have to move to something like a citizens wage simply because there wont be jobs for everyone because robots will be doing them.

policies like this are a stepping stone in that direction, which is better than the other direction (crushing poverty) which Corporate elites would prefer and Oldies are pushing society towards with silly comparisons to their lives and the bountiful times they were fortunate enough to be raised in.

Total "ageist" bullshit there, veya...

Irrespective of whether they are Y-Gen', X-Gen, Babyboomers or pre-babyboomer, it is the greedy, corporatist, right-wing, big business supporters who are pushing for casualised, homeless and hungry pools of workers to feed the machine, while driving down wages and driving up non-productive property prices...

I've seen teenagers and twenty-something-know nothings supporting big business and "trickle down" policies in recent years,  while a lot of people in tneir 60s, 70s and 80s are still pro-worker/pro-union, pro-small business and pro- homeowners..

The bullshit you keep on spouting on this topic (i.e.blaming all babyboomers for the sins of a very small minority..) is simply parroting corporatist propaganda designed to muddy the waters and divide their opposition.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I do think though as much as the oldies hate it
this is going to be necessary and there will be some people that never work because there wont be jobs for them, we will eventually have to move to something like a citizens wage simply because there wont be jobs for everyone because robots will be doing them.

policies like this are a stepping stone in that direction, which is better than the other direction (crushing poverty) which Corporate elites would prefer and Oldies are pushing society towards with silly comparisons to their lives and the bountiful times they were fortunate enough to be raised in.

Total "ageist" bullshit there, veya...

Irrespective of whether they are Y-Gen', X-Gen, Babyboomers or pre-babyboomer, it is the greedy, corporatist, right-wing, big business supporters who are pushing for casualised, homeless and hungry pools of workers to feed the machine, while driving down wages and driving up non-productive property prices...

I've seen teenagers and twenty-something-know nothings supporting big business and "trickle down" policies in recent years,  while a lot of people in tneir 60s, 70s and 80s are still pro-worker/pro-union, pro-small business and pro- homeowners..

The bullshit you keep on spouting on this topic (i.e.blaming all babyboomers for the sins of a very small minority..) is simply parroting corporatist propaganda designed to muddy the waters and divide their opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics

Statistically true down here too
the older you are the more likely you vote conservative

it's not the minority either, YOUR in the minority

down here Who is voting for Coal and Abbott, OLD PEOPLE that like the way Abbott 'stopped the boats'

If you're not a socialist at the age of 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at the age of 40 you have no brain...

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many of us 'babyboomers' who snotty nosed youngsters seem to think had the world on a plate were too poor to carry on in education after the age of 15.
They had no choice other than to leave school and get a full time job to help support the family.
This they did till they could manage to afford a mortgage, where the interest rate (when we bought in the early 80's) soared to 17%, leaving many forced to sell and in negative equity.

I think uni fees should be scrapped in the UK...England especially has very high fees that mount up....far better the money be spent here.
I also think rather than waste time at university doing totally useless subjects many youngsters would benefit more from learning a trade....so bring back decent government funded apprenticeships.

NOT POSSIBLE
today you can't even get a job without higher education
It's not gen Y choosing to Demand a Uni degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
it's not gen Y that have stopped providing on the job training(apprenticeships) to get a trade

The world You grew up in Doesn't exist anymore, Kids today are not so Fortunate to be able to simply get a job and work, and offshoring of work and automation is only going to make it harder


I don't think just giving everybody cash is the best solution but making that sort of fund available to be used for Education, home deposit or to start a business would do a lot to improve employment opportunities for younger generations.

Cobblers. Of course you can get a job without a degree. There's many Uni graduates that end up working as baristas in Starbucks because the degree they studied for hasn't opened the doorways they thought it would. Anyone would think the world was populated with wannabe brain surgeons and rocket scientists. The world runs on those who perform more mundane jobs. The people working in industry, in bars and shops and nursing homes, in keeping out streets clean, in running public transport, in cleaning our hospitals, people who build homes, plumbers, electricians, bakers, the food industry, factories, street cleaners. You'd soon be moaning if the sewage plants closed down and your shitter backed up because Rupert Farquar's degree didn't cut the mustard.

Most of these "degree's" are not worth the paper they are printed on.! It's lefty teachers at lefty Uni's fill their minds with crap and lefty ideas that leave them
totally unfit to cope with the real world.
A bit like yourself who blame the worlds woe's on the older generation and expect everything to fall in their laps while they sit there on their Phones playing games and texing each other.

Tommy Monk wrote:If you're not a socialist at the age of 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at the age of 40 you have no brain...

That's a typical 'straw man' argument.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many of us 'babyboomers' who snotty nosed youngsters seem to think had the world on a plate were too poor to carry on in education after the age of 15.
They had no choice other than to leave school and get a full time job to help support the family.
This they did till they could manage to afford a mortgage, where the interest rate (when we bought in the early 80's) soared to 17%, leaving many forced to sell and in negative equity.

I think uni fees should be scrapped in the UK...England especially has very high fees that mount up....far better the money be spent here.
I also think rather than waste time at university doing totally useless subjects many youngsters would benefit more from learning a trade....so bring back decent government funded apprenticeships.

NOT POSSIBLE
today you can't even get a job without higher education
It's not gen Y choosing to Demand a Uni degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
it's not gen Y that have stopped providing on the job training(apprenticeships) to get a trade

The world You grew up in Doesn't exist anymore, Kids today are not so Fortunate to be able to simply get a job and work, and offshoring of work and automation is only going to make it harder


I don't think just giving everybody cash is the best solution but making that sort of fund available to be used for Education, home deposit or to start a business would do a lot to improve employment opportunities for younger generations.

Cobblers.  Of course you can get a job without a degree.   There's many Uni graduates that end up working as baristas in Starbucks because the degree they studied for hasn't opened the doorways they thought it would.    Anyone would think the world was populated with wannabe brain surgeons and rocket scientists.   The world runs on those who perform more mundane jobs.   The people working in industry, in bars and shops and nursing homes, in keeping out streets clean, in running public transport, in cleaning our hospitals, people who build homes, plumbers, electricians, bakers, the food industry, factories, street cleaners.   You'd soon be moaning if the sewage plants closed down and your shitter backed up because Rupert Farquar's degree didn't cut the mustard.

Why would they employ someone without a degree when even the Barista has one? You need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
Half of those jobs you mentioned will barely pay rent 
Or require Apprenticeships which more people would take as an option if they were on offer. But there is no profit in training someone

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If you're not a socialist at the age of 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at the age of 40 you have no brain...

That's a typical 'straw man' argument.

It's a paraphrase of Winston Churchill


“Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7441607-any-man-under-30-who-is-not-a-liberal-has

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Cobblers.  Of course you can get a job without a degree.   There's many Uni graduates that end up working as baristas in Starbucks because the degree they studied for hasn't opened the doorways they thought it would.    Anyone would think the world was populated with wannabe brain surgeons and rocket scientists.   The world runs on those who perform more mundane jobs.   The people working in industry, in bars and shops and nursing homes, in keeping out streets clean, in running public transport, in cleaning our hospitals, people who build homes, plumbers, electricians, bakers, the food industry, factories, street cleaners.   You'd soon be moaning if the sewage plants closed down and your shitter backed up because Rupert Farquar's degree didn't cut the mustard.

Why would they employ someone without a degree when even the Barista has one? You need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
Half of those jobs you mentioned will barely pay rent 
Or require Apprenticeships which more people would take as an option if they were on offer. But there is no profit in training someone

Is that how it is in Australia? It's not like that here. People with degrees do those jobs but they didn't need the degree to get the job.