Old v. Young
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Have others noticed the new divide and rule tactic, setting the younger generation against the pensioners?
Latest is this. Cherry-picking the privileged executive retirees.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/12/public-sector-pensions-100k-rise-threefold
We all know management got golden handshakes of occupational pensions but to weaponize it against less fortunate public sector pensioners is a bit unfair. It is an attack on the principle that the public sector schemes are commitments to pay a proportion of workers’ final salaries as a retirement income. Most have now shifted to the lower, career average salary calculation.
Another thing I would challenge is this
“Public sector workers have agreed cuts to their pension schemes over the past 10 years, but the reductions have fallen on younger workers entering the schemes”
Indeed there has been reduction in entitlements, and I know from Royal Mail that they reduced the pensions of those taking early voluntary retirement by re-calculating the formula. So the above statement is a misrepresentation. Over 50s for the last 10 years right now have had what they were once entitled to, cut.
Is this a genuine charity , or a lobby group for those businesses who want to cut pensions completely?
Of course, the fundamental issue is a demographic problem A lowered fertility rate and increased longevity means that there is more elderly dependent on less numbers of working age.
So once again the burden has to be placed upon us the workers, or more accurately, us survivors of wage-slavery, lingering on in our frail old age.
Blame the old for being alive.
But that is too brutal for capitalism so the strategy is simply to roll-back all that has been gained by the aged and pretend it is for the benefit of the younger generation which won’t see a penny of the savings.
I think a lot of the divide is based on the housing market. It’s often seen as homeowners and landlords versus those who have to rent
Again with the housing crisis the longevity of the parents is being blamed
https://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/inheritance-may-be-the-only-way-the-young-can-buy-a-house-2616183/
John Porteous, group head of distribution at wealth managers Charles Stanley said, “People are living longer than ever, so relying on an inheritance to get on the housing ladder is a risky strategy as you may get less, and much later than planned.”
Kay Ingram, director of public policy at financial planners LEBC said: “With parents living longer and 20% of those over 80 needing to find care costs, younger generations would be ill advised to wait for their inheritance before buying a property.”
So it is not house building policy or low income stopping the young getting on the first rung of the housing ladder but the fact your mum and dad haven’t died earlier enough to leave you the house (or a share in it if you got brothers and sisters)
Clearly targeting people based on their age or material wealth completely misses the point. This is all a result of capitalist politicians promoting home ownership at a particular point, to counter collective action and so on. The ramifications of this change over time, and now it is the individualised middle aged strata that look after their keep by letting out properties etc. After all, it makes logical individualistic sense what with the low interest rates. You can’t target older people for this on a moral basis, were all part of the working class, and the whole purpose of promoted home ownership and cheap mortgages is to individualise and to pitch us against in each other. Splitting class into age and so forth .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.