# Generation 'Y' hooked on credit:



## krisbarry (16 September 2005)

Gen Y hooked on credit: report

By Sam Holmes

16sep05

THE post-baby boom generation of consumers accept long-term debt as a lifestyle choice and not just a means of getting a financial leg up, research has found.

And the financial services sector remains behind the eight ball when it comes to meeting the needs of Australia's generations X and Y - those born after 1964. 

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said a demographic map divides Australia into three broad generations: "builders" born before the second world war; baby boomers" born between 1946 and 1964 and generations X and Y. 

Generation Y in particular - those born in the early 1980s onwards - were likely to be overly dependent on credit for lifestyle. 

The builders generation - those pre-war - have quite a structure around spending," Mr McCrindle said. 

"They're financially conservative and they like to save and then buy something in force compared with boomers who are a bit more used to credit but at least the boomers are aware of interest rates. 

"The generation Y's are credit dependent." 

He said in a world of HECS debts, internet purchasing, credit cards and mobile phones, generation Y's financial challenges were vastly different to those of previous generations. 

Even buying a home and saving up for the mortgage deposit is a massive commitment compared with the past," he said. 

"The Real Estate Institute shows that it used to take 250 weeks of work, today it takes nearly 500 weeks of work." 

While much of the credit dependency was a product of a younger generation's tendency towards risk, many of the demographic's financial habits were here to stay, he said. 

Mr McCrindle expects life stages such as buying houses and having children to make generation Y slightly more debt averse but he said most of the habits were here to stay. 

Most of what we see today has already been formed by their times, eras, social markers and the like," he said. 

The concern about this was the financial sectors slow reaction to such trends. 

They aren't connecting with gen Y, mainly because gen Y aren't the high net worth individuals - it's the boomers that are," he said. 

"But if you extrapolate it out, generation Y will have far more super than any previous generation because they've got super at nine per cent from day one. 

"I think financial companies need to start to build some loyalty to Gen Y ... and I think they'll be rewarded in the long term." 


Source: http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16622117%5E1702,00.html

Any comments on this article?  Is it just a sign of the times?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 September 2005)

Very recently I found out that a 19 y.o. that I know is taking out a home loan. OK so far...

But there is no home! Well, they have a home in that they live with their parents, but they have never bought property and aren't about to. The "home" loan is for hotting up their car which is already 90%+ financed via a personal loan. 

It seems that the increased amount they "need" went over some kind of limit for personal loans (?), so the bank just gives them a home loan instead. And THE CAR IS UNINSURED (I know this for a fact). 

They just organised some sort of meeting with the bank, went to the meeting and got the loan. 

At least now I know why this "big 4" bank paid me practically no interest on deposits (hence I shifted my cash elsewhere) - with lending practices like this they must (hopefully) be making some pretty big allowances for defaults.


----------



## bvbfan (16 September 2005)

Hmm interesting, it would have to be ANZ, NAB or WBC 

Unless the 'lender' doesn't know what they are selling as CBA has no limits on personal loans

Uninsured or uninsurable? My mate has a turbo and costs him about $4000 a year, I'm guessing this persons (tempted to say guys) insurance is prohibitive


----------



## Julia (16 September 2005)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Very recently I found out that a 19 y.o. that I know is taking out a home loan. OK so far...
> 
> But there is no home! Well, they have a home in that they live with their parents, but they have never bought property and aren't about to. The "home" loan is for hotting up their car which is already 90%+ financed via a personal loan.
> 
> ...




Hello Smurf

Didn't the 19yo need some sort of collateral for the home loan?  Perhaps not.  It's a long time since I had a loan and I guess things are easier.
Whatever, that's a scary story.  Is the kid likely to be able to pay off the debts in the foreseeable future?
Julia


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 September 2005)

bvbfan said:
			
		

> Hmm interesting, it would have to be ANZ, NAB or WBC
> 
> Unless the 'lender' doesn't know what they are selling as CBA has no limits on personal loans
> 
> Uninsured or uninsurable? My mate has a turbo and costs him about $4000 a year, I'm guessing this persons (tempted to say guys) insurance is prohibitive



Not certain that it was due to exceeding a limit on personal loans, but why else would you have a home loan for a car? What he said to me was that it was "because I need more money than the personal loan". Whether or not it was possible to get a sufficient personal loan I really don't know. I assume the home loan interest would be lower though.

As for insurance, yes the problem is the high cost which, I assume, with the mods would only get higher. Young males, hot cars, you know the story. Too big a risk for me, but obviously not for him. Nice car though.

At least third party insurance for property damage ought to be compulsory IMO. What if he runs in to a $100,000 car?


----------



## krisbarry (16 September 2005)

I have spoken to a few generation "Y" recently and it doesn't seem to bother them at all being in debt.

Most of them have mobile phone contracts, car loans, credit cards, store cards, large HECS debts etc.

God I couldn't sleep at night worrying about all that debt!

Maybe this generation don't even care about it.  Seems to be accepted, the norm.

Times are a changing!

But as stated in the article, generation Y, will have an increadible amount of wealth tied up in super @ the 9% employer contribution rate, for all of their working life to this point now.


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2005)

Again.

This isnt the fault of the people getting themselves into ridiculous debt.

The blame lies fairly and squarely with their Parents/Teachers/Grandparents/Uncles/Aunts/Coaches.

The second level is greedy lending institutions who have no care about their customers--not only banks but short term money sharks,Pawnbrokers.

Third tier is the legal system.
Take The Care owner above. He hits a $100K vehical loses the court case--cant pay---declares bankruptcy--stuffs his life up and isnt held responsible for his actions. Rather than that he should be made to pay it back NO MATTER HOW LONG---plus the institution dumb enough to allow someone UN INSURED to get a loan----yes he was dishonest--but the lender was also not interested in the truth---so they to should hold at least 50% liability.

*There are very few ROLE MODELS*
*Kids these days dont respect anyone,simply because they havent been in touch with anything worth respecting!!!*

Dont blame the kids they know no better---and we who do--I'm including ALL in the groups above as WE---dont give a toss.


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2005)

Ahhh but that poses the next question...

The baby-boomer generation are the most wealthiest of all generations ever!

So why then are their off-spring in so much debt?

Generation X started it and now generation Y, thrive in it!

Bad role models you say?

Could be?

So why then have they let their children go so to speak?

OR is it much more than that!

A product of our society....it is almost kewl to be in debt now days.

Saving is not kewl anymore!, says generation Y

OR is it just pure greed of the baby-boomer generation, accelerating prices at such a rapid rate that younger generations simply cannot keep up and then thumb their noses at their parents greed?

Babyboomers say generation Y, want it all now and are not interested in saving, not even for a house. But with so much wealth and greed at the top end of town, doesn't leave much room for younger generations to create much wealth does it?

Who knows?

Just thought I would add a little more fuel to the fire!


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2005)

Kris.

Dont know that the babyboomers are the wealthiest ever.
In terms of net asset relative to the value of money in the past I dont think it is much different.
Only 5% will retire without gvernment assistance.
Only 10% have an investment property.
Less than 1% have more than 1 and less than 5
Less than 1% of that 1% have more than 5.

Realestate is where most of the wealth comes from.

I doubt that there is a correlation with wealth and commonsence.
I also doubt that there is a correlation between wealth and role models.
Respect is not a given it is earnt--often through admiration.

To suggest that Y generation are getting in debt to spite parents is strange.

Kris I must say that I find your aversion to wealth creation interesting.
When does looking after ones interests in life turn to greed in your view?
When does an entrepenuers pursuit of development and expansion become greed?
How would there be growth of any sort in a democratic society if there werent people that pushed beyond acceptable growth parameters(whatever they are?).

Saving is only the tip of the iceberg.
Its not what or even how much you earn.
Its WHAT YOU DO WITH IT that will determine wealth.

Overdosing on depreciating assets isnt the way to go and many "Y" generation dont understand the mechanics of it all!---Ignorance YES.

The world IS a level playing field---we all have a choice.
Actually let me re phrase that.
AUSTRALIA is currently a level playing field----

Regardless of all of the above---role models arent limited to the wealthy.
Everyone Knows Whats right and wrong---but it seems many have no idea how to apply it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2005)

Julia said:
			
		

> Hello Smurf
> 
> Didn't the 19yo need some sort of collateral for the home loan?  Perhaps not.  It's a long time since I had a loan and I guess things are easier.
> Whatever, that's a scary story.  Is the kid likely to be able to pay off the debts in the foreseeable future?
> Julia



Realistically, I think they _could_ pay it off over about 4 years if they maintain constant employment, which in this case is far from certain, and put increases in income straight into extra repayments. But realistically they are far more likely to make the minimum payments and then go back for another loan next time they want another car (which based on their history will be relatively quickly).

They started with a modest loan and a "normal" car. That lasted a few months. Then came the big loan and the nice car. Now it's another loan on top of the original one to modify the car (virtually all their income already gets spent on this so we're talking serious money here). End result is increasing debt to finance a depreciating asset.

As for collateral for the loan, I really don't know. The car would cover the existing personal loan (but it's not insured which really worries me). As for the new loan, I really don't know.

Who do I blame for this? Parents, teachers, the bank, government, SOMEONE ought to be putting some education and/or  limits in place here. It wouldn't take a lot to end up with a worthless asset (crashed car) and huge debt.  

That said, if someone is considered responsible enough to drive then they ought to be able to think about the consequences of their actions in other areas too, including finance. Personal responsibility. That seems to be viewed as being very old fashioned though.

I do view this attitude (in general, not just this specific case) towards debt as being just one example of an overall attitude in society these days. MUST have a mobile and a 12 month old one just won't do, MUST have a nice big car, MUST live in a good suburb, MUST have the latest electronic gadgets etc. And then something completely foreseeable, like fuel prices or interest rates rising, happens and they blame everyone but themselves for their situation. That said, in defence of generation Y, there aren't too many parents and teachers running around warning about what interest rates and fuel prices can do and in fact we have politicians constantly promising that all will be well. Hmm...


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2005)

That is a well reported fact that babybomers are the wealthiest ever in the history of man-kind and most of the wealth has come about through real estate.  

There is somewhat of a correlation between wealth and commonsense.

Commensense buys time to make educated decisions in life, and hence build wealth and not debt.

I did hear the story about the real-estate agent who said "Buy property where the nerds are buying"  That way your wealth will always grow.  Very true!

Even in a downward real-estate market the "nerdy" eastern suburbs of Adelaide full of brain power, degrees, doctors, lawyers etc, property prices will rise.  Not so in the outer suburbs of the south and north that will eventually plummet first, and in a big way.  Yes Tech/a your properties will be hit the first! Time to sell those properties mate and recheck those figures as the 26% yearly gains are gone, or about to go!

Lets look at another area that some may never have either considered...

Anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication such as Zoloft, Aropax, Prozac are being handed out like lollies to many kids.  These drugs alter thought process in the brain.  All your cares/worries go away with these drugs.  People can spend lots of money while under these medications and not worry about the damage they are doing.  Then they just pop a pill and all their financial troubles just dissapear.  DONT LAUGH ITS TRUE!!!!

To answer your greed question.... Greed IMO is when you have ample at the expense of the average Joe!  Simply as that!

Now where is that fire?


----------



## Julia (17 September 2005)

Kris,

You seem to be getting back into the "politics of envy" stuff again.  Every time one of these discussions about money/assets,investment, profit etc comes you seem to find it necessary to take a personal swipe at Tech's situation.  Why can't you simply offer the credit that is due to someone who has obviously (a) worked hard (b) invested wisely, and (c) is clearly happy to pass on any tips or advice to anyone else who wants to do the same?

I don't think many of us have had the benefit of a charmed life where everything falls into place and what we want comes easily.  On the contrary, most of the people I know who probably would be considered fairly well off now have worked really hard, taken some risks, and simply not been wasteful.  I get a bit tired of the constant bashing of baby boomers.  I'm not far away from this group and know that I've had times of really struggling to keep my head above water.  But I don't blame the world for that.  Lots of things happen which are really "unfair".  So, get over it. Make the best of what life offers and find a way round the difficulty.  The baby boomers didn't live on credit, they saved and then bought what they needed when they could afford it.  When I first got married we had second hand furniture and we both worked two jobs.  Went without things like TV and sound equipment  because a washing machine was more important etc etc.

At the risk of sounding very "fuddy-duddy" I feel the whole emphasis of life these days is on the wrong area - things rather than relationships.  It saddens me that such a simple quality as kindness seems to be in such short supply.  A little less of "I must have....." and a little more of "how can I make a contribution to my community" would, in my very humble opinion, be a great benefit to us all.

One thing I do absolutely agree with you about, Kris, is the wholesale handing out of antidepressants and anxiolytics.  It's in many cases another example of relinquishing personal responsibility for solving our problems.

Tech is right about the lack of appropriate modelling by parents, teachers and others who necessarily influence the attitudes of young people.   A son of one of my neighbours, an introverted, sad little kid of 10, was suspended from his private school a couple of weeks ago.  The suspension was because he swore at another kid who pushed him.  The parents of this kid, despite displaying quite ostentatious wealth, use language which would make most people blanch when they berate each other.  This kid, in a moment of anger, can't be blamed for spouting the word he constantly hears at home.  In an additional act of irony, the parents added their own punishment by cancelling a week's holiday the kid had been looking forward to while his sister was allowed to go.

Julia


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2005)

In my defence Tech/a was the first one to personalise this thread.

I was hoping it would stay generalized but it did not.

I was not attacking him at all, merely stating that baby boomers are generally very wealthy and maybe this is why it makes it difficult for younger generations to create wealth. 

Check back on this thread and you will find that Tech/a threw the first stone!

Tech/a used my name first and henced personalised it, not me!


----------



## Kauri (17 September 2005)

Ah, I see the soap box is vacant again..     
  That is a well reported fact that babybomers are the wealthiest ever in the history of man-kind and most of the wealth has come about through real estate. 

   And if you buy a house now when your group (gen Y, children of B.Boomers.. or whatever the label will be ), will they be far richer than the current B. Boomers? When I bought my first house the people I bought it from had paid $14,000 for it, and were considered rich. I paid $51,000 for it, and now am considered rrich because of the effect of inflation etc. If I sell I will still only be able to afford to buy one house to replace it. Of course some have more than one house, but they are by far in the minority.
   Instead of valuing wealth in dollar terms, try valuing it in house terms. My parents in their time could afford only one house, their parents could afford one house, and I can afford one house. I see us all as equally well off.
   I see people who blame drugs, legal or otherwise, for their situation, as people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions, and I also don't think that depression is a modern disease.


----------



## Mofra (17 September 2005)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Not certain that it was due to exceeding a limit on personal loans, but why else would you have a home loan for a car? What he said to me was that it was "because I need more money than the personal loan". Whether or not it was possible to get a sufficient personal loan I really don't know. I assume the home loan interest would be lower though.



Any loan that is secured by property is classed as a home loan, and the majority of home loans in Australia are NOT for purchases or investments, they are for cars, holidays, basically anything that is both:

a.   A depreciating asset, and
b.   Non-tax deductable debt

I have been in the home loan lending industry a number of years and nowadays people don't apply for a loan of $x anymore, they ask what the maximum they can get is and then blow the lot. 

I think it is unfair to blame a single generation for the appalling standards of bad debt that is handed out *every day* to anyone who can get it, as there seems to be no real age pattern, especially with the growing popularity of seniors loans (borrowing the equity from their property, only to be repaid after they die from the sale of the property).

I see cases every day where people on $100k, $150k (of *any*  generation) have one property, no real assets and are up to their eyeballs in debt, so they refinance their home loans to pay the $100k+ in credit Card debt they have accumulated - only to do the same thing again as soon as they can spare the equity.

I am more worried about the credit bubble bursting than any other economic phenomenon on the horizon, if property prices fall by even a modest amount we could quite feasibly have a large proportion of this country (including salaried middle income earners) declaring bankrupcy.


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2005)

Exactly my point Julia, why is it that we have two generations that cannot save for the life of them, while their parents were great role models by showing the need to save.

On one hand you are saying they are great role models and on the other you question why youth cannot save due to the lack of role models. 

So which one is it?


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2005)

Kris you think in a funnel.

We are not saying that Babyboomers are ALL role models.
Infact in life there are very few Baby boomers or not!
Thats the problem.Many Many babyboomers could do with some guidence there are 1000s who have stuffed their lives up.Their kids along with them.

Back to this greed thing.
If everyone who has more asset than your undefined limit?? (Please define what is enough?) How you determine expense at the average Joe beats me.
The average Joe buys my properties,I was the average Joe once as well and I bought properties owned by the MR Bigs---so what.

So Bill Gates,Kerry Packer,Rupert Murdoch,infact any business owner must by definition be greedy.Any investor must be greedy.
I think you would feel happier if I sold my properties to Joe average at 1990 prices then they would have a chance to re sell them at 2005 prices---hahaha.

What then would define a bludger then?
Do you think anyone who doesnt take opportunities that are presented to them as a bludger?
If not why not?

I havent taken a personal swipe at you.
I have taken an interest in how you think.

I wouldnt be to worried about tech/a he's been down the road your having trouble getting on!

Oh Be careful what you play with!!!


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2005)

My point is that teenagers/youth are almost opposed to anything their parents do and have done.  That is the nature of being a teenager/young person.  Always being stubbourn etc.

That is why my comment was raised about the fact they may look up to their parents and see that they were hard working and created lots of wealth, but do not want to go down that road and in fact thumb their noses at their parents.  By...

* Working Less
* Getting into debt
* Not saving for a house deposit
* Travelling overseas

Why live out your parents life, says generation "Y".

Or maybe it is simply for the fact they see their parents as being so wealthy that they decide to live it up and expect that mum and dad will pick up the cost of their lifestyle.

Maybe they are questioning the need and value of working hard, creating wealth, buying a house, car, having 3 children, a dog, and of course the white picket fence!

Maybe they would rather have the debt, the technologies etc.

Thanks for the funnel comment Tech/a, just filtered that one straight out mate! LOL

Not going to comment on greed, you know how I feel.

A bludger is a welfare cheat!


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2005)

Mofra said:
			
		

> I am more worried about the credit bubble bursting than any other economic phenomenon on the horizon, if property prices fall by even a modest amount we could quite feasibly have a large proportion of this country (including salaried middle income earners) declaring bankrupcy.





Yeah I saw it just a few weeks back on ACA.  A street in Sydney lined with for sales signs on them.  Too many average Joe's borrowing way too much money and investing in the property market at the wrong time.  They had to work 3 or 4 jobs to keep up the payments.  Then the property market crashed and now they are in a worse position than when they first started.

I do not feel sorry for any of them.  Thats what greed does!  They all bit off far to much than they could chew and now they are all chocking on the vomit of a very sick housing market.

Not only were they greedy but now they cry poverty, while they were the ones that started this god damn mess in the first place.

If Australians just eased up in the property market there would be plenty to go round for us all!  Then no-one would need to choke on anyone elses greed.

And if you think it is only going to happen in Sydney, think again.  The smell of vomit travels fast.

Oh god another property investor is just pewkin' now! Where is that chuck bucket?


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2005)

Unfortunately for younger generation "Y" the majority will be unlucky enough to become the Older generation "Y".

*As you get older the choices you can make and opportunities become less.*

Decisions you make today *WILL* govern your place in life *TOMMORROW*

Let me give you an example.

I private mailed you a few weeks ago offering you the opportunity to meet the leading television Ad man in Adelaide.His contacts in all Television stations in Adelaide are vast.He is highly respected by producers,directors and media operations people in Adelaide.His ability to open doors is not to be underestimated---I discovered this when invited to have lunch with John Singleton a few years ago.

I also have a friend who owns Motown Media one of Adelaide's go getter media centers---I to offered you an introduction here---their contacts are vast as well.

Kris in your wisdom you decided that you wouldnt even have the deciency to reply to my offer.
Your pig headed--frankly stupid attitude may well have robbed you of an opportunity that certaintly wont present itself again.


I find you a blueprint of many young people and as such my interest.
You have displayed here succinctly an example of the "Y" generation.

This is not a personal attack rather an observation one which you have offered up.

When you turn 50 youll have had the opportunity to be a bitter and twisted has been or one who can make a diference in peoples lives you choose to be involved with---you'll be able to look back with contentment or regret.

*Your choice*


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2005)

Oh and by the way.
Falling property markets and rising interest rates wont/dont bother me an others like me a bit.
We own more than we dont.
We are targetting passive income.
And we are as happy as pigs in poop.

Or should I say Daffy

Its Mine Mine Mine!!!!


----------



## Happy (17 September 2005)

I do not use credit for personal use full stop, too expensive for me.

Do away for a while with few things, save some money and spend on what you can afford now, which is much cheaper and can spread your money further.

Cook some stuff home opposed to take-away or night out, about 50% to 90% saving.
Brew some beer if you drink beer, make some wine if you prefer wine 30% to 80% saving (good site Joe).
Change oil yourself if car outside warranty.
Walk more
Enjoy simple things like running, swimming, even poetry evenings opposed to rental movies or movies.

Could make comments on a phone, Internet and other things too, but probably got everybody bored already.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Exactly my point Julia, why is it that we have two generations that cannot save for the life of them, while their parents were great role models by showing the need to save.
> 
> On one hand you are saying they are great role models and on the other you question why youth cannot save due to the lack of role models.
> 
> So which one is it?




Kris,

Re your second paragraph above, I don't think I made any comment about youth being unable to save due to the lack of role models.  

My comment about role models was in the context of a kid being punished for swearing when such swearing was what is modelled in the home.

Julia


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2005)

I do take tech's point about investing in property for passive income. If I were in his position then I wouldn't necessarily sell my properties but I couldn't resist mentioning something.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...l/2005/08/22/1124562790666.html?oneclick=true

It seems that house prices in Sydney aren't falling a bit. They're falling rather a lot. No longer do we have that $580K+ average house price in Sydney (Commonwealth Bank figure), now it's down to just $495,000 and falling at $5000 a month.

To modify an advertisement somewhat "This house lost more today than it's owner earns". 

But it gets even more interesting. Not content with falling at 1% a month, the rate seen in some historic property market crashes (notably the UK in the early 1990's), some suburbs are falling at three times that rate.

A few of those highly geared 100% loan property speculators must be getting a little worried I would think... If they sell now then they still have some debts to repay with prices falling like this. And if they sell tomorrow then it's worse.

And it's not just Sydney. Another article (I'll post the link if I can find it but it was a major newspaper) said that Hobart prices are going down even faster than Sydney's.

Now I did post this in good humour since we've had this property debate before.   I don't wish anyone bad luck with their investments but I maintain that now isn't the time to buy residential property. Wait until it's back to a reasonable valuation relative to incomes IMO.


----------



## Dan_ (17 September 2005)

I’d thought I’d share my views on this topic….

Firstly it is reported that the Baby boomers are the wealthiest generation by far (according to this thread) and most of this wealth is attributed to real estate. I think this is taken slightly out of context as these people would be described as “asset rich” and not necessarily “cash rich” As majority of baby boomers I know are asset rich and cash poor. 

Until they cash in their properties by selling them I don’t see how these people are being more and greedier by simply owning an appreciating asset?

So why are these people so lucky to own all of the appreciating assets that put housing out of reach for most people? It’s simply because they have had time on their hands. They struggled (as people do today) when they brought their house by saving up a massive deposit, putting on the best and begging with the bank manager for a loan to buy the house, then paying it off as quickly as possible living in fear the bank my recall the full amount at any time (a practice which I think was more common in the old days)

Fast forward 30 years & thanks to globalization, competition (whatever you want to call it) a young couple (let’s call them the joneses) decide to buy this property. They use a mortgage broker to organize the finance with 20 banks fighting for their business and they move in.

Now here is where I think you will find the differences between people and not generations. The joneses have good steady incomes; they are paying off their house and have no credit card debit, and use their surplus income for investing in appreciating assets. They go on the occasional holiday (after saving for it) drive nice cars and live a happy life.

In come Joe Blow (no reference to admin, his family, relatives or pets  ) and sees this and thinks “that’s what makes people happy & why can’t I have the same as them” because all he can see it a nice house, car, holiday & all the material things.

But Joe is a younger generation who unlike older generations does not have to save for everything that he wishes to have now (even though he should), Thanks again to competition by signing a few pieces of paper he can have access to a line of credit (card/loan) for more money than he parents would of ever dreamed off. 

So he does this and buy’s the car, clothes & phone all on credit so he can appear to have it as good as the joneses and so the vicious credit cycle starts.

So young Joe (Gen X-Y) has all these things without saving and here is where I see the deference in people and not generations

Because now Baby-Boomers who used to live in fear of the bank, now have the option of walking in with the title of their land and redrawing their equity for what ever purpose they wish.

And here you will find baby boomers who were forced to save and pay off the house in the past redrawing that money and buying boats, cars, holidays with the same regard to debit as Joe.

However there are also baby boomers who like the joneses (who must have had good role models) redraw their equity and buy some investments (shares, property, businesses) to enhance their wealth.

So at the end of the day I don’t think that one generation was a massive saving generation on their own, and now a younger generation is only a generation of spenders on credit.

I think both had different circumstances which resulted in the “perceived generalisations” of the generations. As the playing field becomes more similar you have the spenders, and the savers doing the exact same thing they would have done. In the boomers case they redraw money to spend in deprecating assets and the younger borrowing on credit to buy the same deprecating assets.

The main issue is education. People need to be made aware of the basics of “good debit” & bad debit” and stop trying to force a divide between the generations.

Tech – Thanks for your posts and willingness to be so open in regards to your personal experience. It provides great reading and I also agree with the theory property & shares, not property v shares

Kris – You seem to have a lot of information in regards to the older generations so why not use it further to your advantage (shares in lvl were a start, what’s the next share to benefit form the baby boomers? – Vaccines, artificial hips, sunscreen, or channel nine as they all love “ray?) Let us know your thoughts

Keep up the debate, I still don’t know If I’m Gen X or Y!

_I've got the flu so excuse the length of the post_


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2005)

Happy said:
			
		

> I do not use credit for personal use full stop, too expensive for me.
> 
> Do away for a while with few things, save some money and spend on what you can afford now, which is much cheaper and can spread your money further.
> 
> ...



Always been into that kind of thinking. Saves $$$ and you'll likely live longer too with the exercise etc.

As for the phone and internet, I make a profit trading online so they're financially positive for me. And I wouldn't know half the stuff I know now if it wasn't for the internet so I'm quite happy to pay for that anyway. I don't have a mobile though and hopefully wont have to get one.


----------



## krisbarry (18 September 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for younger generation "Y" the majority will be unlucky enough to become the Older generation "Y".
> 
> *As you get older the choices you can make and opportunities become less.*
> 
> ...




WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!

Actually I spent sometime writing a reply and sent it via private email.  I am not sure where the private email ended up maybe Joe could track it down.

I declined the offer due to two reasons:

The first reason was for the fact that my skills are not current.  Most of what I learnt at Uni back in 1992-1996, would not be relevant in todays media industry.  For example, I used VCR tape to tape editing. VCR cameras, basic sound programs that are not used anymore. etc etc.

My skills were no longer practised after I left uni, and the forms of technology are no longer used.

The second reason was for the fact that I no longer have any interest in the film and TV industry except for watching it.  So why do something you are not interested in?

My passion lies in the stock-market now, that is what drives me and that is my yearning in life.

I also have a few friends in the film/t.v. industry that could get me work too, one who works for channel 9.

So get off your high horse and accept the fact that the private mail was lost in the post.  I did respond end of story!

Will no longer be posting on this thread!!!!!


----------



## Joe Blow (18 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Actually I spent sometime writing a reply and sent it via private email.  I am not sure where the private email ended up maybe Joe could track it down.




It is possible tech/a didn't receive it if his PM box was full, although it would have told you that when you attempted to send it. 

Just a reminder to everyone that it is easy to download all your PM's to your PC if you are running out of space. Click through to your Private Messages and look down towards the bottom, you will see this:

Download all Private Messages as :
XML | CSV | Text

Simply click on whichever option you prefer. Once downloaded you can delete all your PM's knowing that you have a copy of them all on your PC.


----------



## ghotib (18 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Gen Y hooked on credit: report
> 
> By Sam Holmes
> 
> ...



Yanno, this classifying behaviour by generations is a bigger load of self-justifying gabble than the Latham diaries. By McCrindle's classification system, the "baby-boom generation of consumers" took out 25 year mortgages and built a lifestyle on the basis that they had to be repaid. Is he seriously suggesting that wasn't long-term debt???? 

Good Grief!!

Ghoti (I might be a fish, but I can still think better than that) the Curmudgeon


----------



## tech/a (18 September 2005)

Fine Kris.

Why do you sign off K Barry B.V.A if its useless?

Goodluck then.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2005)

Reply to Dan:

Didn't include the quote because it was a long post.
Just wanted to say thanks for a sensible summing up of the discussion so far.

Julia


----------



## krisbarry (18 September 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Fine Kris.
> 
> Why do you sign off K Barry B.V.A if its useless?
> 
> Goodluck then.




I do this because I am proud of my achivements, even if not used or practised, they show status in the community, no matter the degree.

If you put in the hard yards and pay the money, the rewards of a signature should be of the owners choosing to use them or not.

I am also a qualified Dental Assistant too, so I can add this to my title if I wanted (Cert. D.A.).

tech/a, do you have any qualifications, if so what are they?

Have you ever considered going to uni/tafe?

What would you study and why?

Would you pay your fees up front or defer?


----------



## tech/a (18 September 2005)

Well lets see.

A Diploma in Technical analysis.
A General builders licience which I had to study for.
6 yrs in Wing Chun in my 20s which is a discipline which has served me well for many years.
1988 Completed Benificial Finance 6 day Ultra Triathlon.
154K bike,205K bike,35K Canoe,35K Canoe,64K Run,Marathon 42.2k
After that NOTHING is impossible!

Funny you should mention it I have just paid the $4000+ fee x 3 for the Professional Management Program starting in October at the Adelaide Uni.

Why---They contacted me by phone then post.I thought it a worthwhile thing for 2 of my Staff---Office Manager and Production Manager to do so I decided that if I was going to send them--- along I would go as well.
Paid their fees too---guess their outperformance in my company has been rewarded with a scholarship!

So as you can see success and obviously greed isnt limited to the tertiary educated.

There are a few others here who evidently suffer from the same greed afliction as myself. I'm happy to help them in anyway I can in their pursuit of true financial freedom.
As you can see I prefer to be pro active in most things.

Life is good I really enjoy it and all those in it with me.

Kris I suppose you'll be limiting your success in stock trading to simply covering expenses and a few $$s for the odd frivolous indulgence?

Must say I enjoy your topics.


----------



## RichKid (18 September 2005)

Kris, I know tech is a bit full on at times but I hope you keep posting, your explanation re your refusal of his offer sounds perfectly reasonable to me, perhaps it suggests the importance of communicating rather than jumping to conclusions. I hope you two get on in future, whether you agree or not you have both learnt something from these exchanges.

Good luck with your course Tech, must be exciting preparing for something new (and a bit nervous too). It's never too late to learn something new. I have a feeling some of your lecturers will be engaged in some fierce debate come the enrolment of Mr Tech/a! 

Glad to see you taking care of your own, some co's don't spend enough on internal development. I'm sure it'll be easier to study when you have your staff to share ideas with.


----------



## krisbarry (18 September 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Kris I suppose you'll be limiting your success in stock trading to simply covering expenses and a few $$s for the odd frivolous indulgence?




For sure, there is no need for me to be wealthy. 

Just need the basics...a roof over my head, food in my belly, friends, family, and a little cash.  

Not interested in owning a multitude of wealth, that just robs others of a future. IMO.

I do not think that I am limiting myself in anyway, cannot take wealth to the grave!

Good to hear you have mastered many areas in life and have loads of qualifications, well done!

I am only 31 but have achieved great success already....my next 4 years will be dedicated to trading on the stock market to build up enough funds for a house deposit and purchase my first house at the age of 35 ish.

That is all I need, I am a simple man, and don't need to surround myself with the glitz/glam of wealth.  I find that very off putting IMO!

So here comes the crunch tech/a...

The best finacial freedom/ help that you could offer me and many others is not advice at all, but action.

By action I mean sharing wealth, not advice, that would be the key to true financial freedom for others.

So here it is plain and simple, blunt and to the point!

What just happened in the housing market will not happen again for another 30 years.  There was massive growth far beyond what was expected. 

I put you to the challenge, can you face it, the success of letting go now...

So what I am asking of you now-or to consider is...

Sell a little wealth, downsize, free up that housing for the coming generations!

We would all like to buy an affordable house, raise children etc.  you have had your time.

How does all this sit with you?

Now where is all that money tech/a is sitting on....?

ahhhh there it is


----------



## krisbarry (18 September 2005)

Kauri said:
			
		

> I also don't think that depression is a modern disease.




Very true, what is modern is the way depression is treated now days via the wide range of drugs out on the market.

Particularly the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and the older style meds called tricylics (TCA).  These drugs work on the serotonin, dopamine, and  noradrenelin receptors in the brain.

These chemicals are responsible for pleasure, happiness etc. (the pleasure centres of the brain)

People can beome depressed when they spend a lot of money, and then to ease this depression they spend more money - addiction.

They then pop anti-depressants which mask pain and block out sad feelings.

Hence causing them not to worry about their financial pain and so they cycle continues.

This is a very concerning trend, are we over perscribing drugs to mask pain, the same pain that is needed to fix problems in the first place?


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 September 2005)

What everyone does with their money is of course up to them but if it were me then rather than limit my income I would simply donate to charity or otherwise usefully spend (on others) any that I deemed excess to my requirements.


----------



## krisbarry (18 September 2005)

Very true, there is always different ways to view wealth.

Some limit income...

while others have plenty of it and give most of it away

So really at the end of the day there is no difference is there?

...But to rob others of a future so as to have ones own self gratification, the need for greed, fulfilled, is morally wrong.


----------



## kerosam (19 September 2005)

hi, i might have miss the core discussion in this thread but thought i'll share.

For the last 10 months, i have been sharing and catching up with a few close friends... you know, just general chat about life ove dinner and what each one of us want to achieve and so forth. These are close friends so i really didn't mind telling what i want to do for the next ten working years (ok, add another 5). Most of their replies are to travel and retire in a home and draw a pension. And mine, I told them I want to be rich and financially independent when i retire. And the expression on their faces (mind you, they were all on seperate occasions) were the same, disappointment and shock! I'll leave the experiences as that.

another incident was with my housemate. I was leaving with him for about 2 months. And every couple of days, i would bring back the AFR, money mag, personal investor and IPOs prospectus home etc to read. and one day while reading a company prospectus, he commented that i am obssesed with making money! we didn't dig deep on that statement. but was definitely surprise (and rude!)to hear something like that from a 40 year old man (not married) and shares ownship of his home with a the government (joint ownership... he was earning below a certain amount and thus able to qualify for such a loan). Well, he was volunteering for a non-profit organisation and his income comes thru donation and gifts.

all said and done, are people generally repellent of money? What's wrong with being rich or accumulating wealth? i do donate more to friends and organisations who are in need and do charity whenever i can. i give my parents about 15% of my monthly income, i pay my bills on time, i make extra repayments on my mortgage. I don't see myself doing that if i didn't get a high paying job and living on a bloody tight budget. situation will change when i get married and have kids. so what's wrong with 'making hay while the sun shines'... 

i don't want to rely on the govt to support me. you'll never know what could happen in the next 15 to 20 years on pensioners. what if they decided to scrap giving allowances? what if the govt in running when i retire has a policy of 'bugga all the elderly'?there are countries where the eldlies are either dependent on their kids to support them or they work till they die!

i want to support my parents when they are sick. i don't want them to live on the public health system. i want them to get the best treatment where possible when they are ill. i want to provide as much comfort in their twlight years. if they are working at a retirement age out of need, i would be very very disappointed with myself and fail as a child of my parents.

i want to support my wife and kids comfortably... be it when they are young or working adults. Of course i am not negating any discipline but i want to help the kids when they are buying their first home or starting their own business. i want to accumlate wealth so that i don;t have to sacrifice family time for work!

i want to give when there is a need for volunteers who pursue a noble cause e.g sponsoring a child in africa, giving tithes to a church minister and other worthy causes. with time and no money worries, i want to coach the kids basketball team in the local club. i want to impart life principles or what i can give to allow them to be better friends, children of their parents and to contribute back to society.

the list can go on. i agree that there must be a line drawn on wealth accumulation. Like all things, it must balance. if it is obtained in a dishonored way, then of course, we are not to approve it. if it is at the expense of 'living', then it is not worth purseing. Like someone shared in this forum, if it thru hardwork and wise investment, why not?


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

Valid points, and well said.

I guess it comes down to the fact that....how many toes do you have to walk on to create that wealth only to give it to a very few on the other end?

Wouldn't it be wiser to reduce your capacity for wealth creating, and share your wealth along the way with all, and not just your chosen few, that would be the most moral thing anyone could do.

Alway remeber that the wealth you have created, has only been created by others giving up theirs!


----------



## Dan_ (19 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Alway remeber that the wealth you have created, has only been created by others giving up theirs!




Kris,

I'm confused can you explain the above statement? The most common way for people to create wealth is to exchange their time (which has a monetary value) for money. This transaction only takes place if both parties agree on the outcome.

Who is "giving up" wealth in this scenario?


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2005)

How then does small business grow to large business.
Thus creating employment for 1000s--if there are not excesses to allow for expansion?
If the world was filled with mediocrity then you would have no growth at all in both mind and finance.
If you wish to retire at 55-60 how much do you think you need?
If you dont have an excess--what do you suggest?--government hand out?
If your spouse need sepcialist care EG a Dementia patient---where would those funds come from?
If you have ailing parents who may not have taken advantage of opportunity's as they came along---let the government pick up the tab?
When they dont just shrug your shoulders and say sorry cant help.

When you know of GENUINE cases of hardship and you are in the position to help without the recipient being aware---who but those with excess can apply?

The "tall poppy syndrome " is alive and well in Australia and right here on this forum.
Laughing loudest and even wishing failure of those who have created success.
But even when and if they fall they will have only fell to the level of those who knock,and they will have something that the knockers can never attain.
*EXPERIENCE*

Frankly if my world falls in a heap and I have nothing in the end---I dont care---what a fantastic journey it is and has been!

In every society there needs to be leaders and followers,life has its way of filtration.


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2005)

*Demand creates excess in ALL things including wealth.*


----------



## Milk Man (19 September 2005)

If everyone just took their fair share and sang coombaya that would be great. That's pure communism. But here in Australia we live in the real world.
People aren't all nice. 

Most of us realise that the best way to have a fulfilling life is to make the world a better place; there are always those that don't though. Some will take and take and take. You can't beat them by taking your fair share and doing charity work or giving spin-offs from a modest trading regime. You have to maximise your own returns first. Once you've accumulated enough to give substantially and are able to keep doing so then you start to make a difference. 

Please use your heads people: a loser mentality doesn't do you or anyone who needs help any good.


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

Ohhh well, if you can't beat them join em' right...I am going to take the greed approach now too, and not answer any of the questions raised above...

Who really cares?

I am too busy making money today and too greedy to even think of anyone elses needs, views, wants, desires...

Ohhh god....I forgot I was posting a share discussion board, these people only seem interested in making money. right.

Each to their own I guess.

seems like the stuff everyone else attitude is alive and well, not the tall poppy syndrome as described!


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2005)

Strange that you cant fathom a blending of wealth and conservatism.

That creation of excess must be at the expense of something/someone when infact it is often quite the opposite---new opportunities abound.
*Your cup is always half empty not half full.*
Take Gates and Microsoft---1000s new jobs and realisation of many dreams.
Murdoch,Packer,Gerry Harvey,Gordon Pickard the list goes on.
Their entrepenuerism has created a demand that continues in spite of the creators.

Would the world be a better place without them?
Do you have to be even remotely like them---of course not.

There are 2 sides to every coin---there is a time when you'll be sick of being tossed around---choose then whether your a head or a tail and be satisfied with YOUR lot.


----------



## Happy (19 September 2005)

Best if everybody could work on him/herself and not run around pointing finger at everybody else.

Of course some people need to be stopped, but not everybody who creates wealth does it in illegal manner. 

There are numbers of genuinely hard working people who achieve their targets by hard work, sacrifice and determination.
Even our Anita Bell didn’t have Tim Tams for several years.


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Take Gates and Microsoft---1000s new jobs and realisation of many dreams.
> .




Ahhh but what did he do.....made everyone that bought a pc, and turned it on, was forced to see microsoft products on their computer.

Consumers had no option when buying a complete computer package, it was supplied.

Hence microsoft was sued and (Microsoft) Bill Gates was fined squillions.

This is a classic example of corporate greed at its finest.

Mass sackings occurred and the share price went south!

Microsoft is another example of outsourcing its workforce to India.  Computer programmers getting paid crap!

Bill Gates is nothing more than a corporate criminal doing it all legally!

Too much greed, I say!


----------



## Milk Man (19 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Bill Gates is nothing more than a corporate criminal doing it all legally!
> 
> Too much greed, I say!




He also gives a great big wad to charity. That's basically all his wife does; find good causes and give them massive amounts of cash. And he can do that forever no matter how many programs he sells. Why? Because he didn't aim for mediocrity. Do you think Microsoft would have got off the ground if he gave his savings to the red cross? What difference would it have made if he decided to give his cash away too soon? Squat! He now can and does make a massive difference to masses of under-priveleged people. As for being a criminal, its just sour grapes to detract from such genius.

As for helping people; you can't rely on everyone else. Not everyone will take only what they need. What difference will it make if you give $100 to charity a week? Put that into a trading regime and keep doing so until you can give $10000 a week and not worry about it. Do like Bill Gates and maximise your earnings so that you can make a diiference.


----------



## cocacowla (19 September 2005)

Hi all, this is my first post so be nice 
I just thought I'd chime in and give another opinion of a younger person- im 23.

Yes a lot of young people are not so much anti-wealth, but they dont want to have their lives ruled by a quest for money. As kerosams story showed, its not really cool to want to become rich.

But I think there is a huge hypocracy in the way they go about this. They sort of think money isnt what makes you happy, so I wont save it, but then go and spend the money on stupid sh*t like an overpriced car or gadjets or whatever as soon as they can.

I guess I've figured that what would make _me_ happy is to not have to work anymore, so Ive sort of been starting to work towards that.

Most kids grow up being told that money isnt everything, theres more to life blah blah, and theyre listening.

regarding the anti-capitalist, give more to the poor talk-
This generation is vastly more anti-capitalist than previous ones.I sort of agree with what krisbarry is saying, the way Im thinking at the moment, I would feel slightly guilty if I was very rich and didnt give anything to charity. 

There will always be rich people and poor people, the gap between the wealthy and poor is what we should be worried about.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Alway remeber that the wealth you have created, has only been created by others giving up theirs!



Unless you are in some kind of PRODUCTIVE business such as farming, mining / smelting, manufacturing etc. The sorts of businesses that I have spent literally thousands of hours trying to assist, mostly through my energy knowledge.

Your point is absolutely correct though when applied to anything non-productive, which is what most of the public seems to want more of (because anything productive is too polluting / ugly / noisy etc).


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Strange that you cant fathom a blending of wealth and conservatism.
> 
> That creation of excess must be at the expense of something/someone when infact it is often quite the opposite---new opportunities abound.
> *Your cup is always half empty not half full.*
> ...



An outstanding "community" example comes to mind. The example is very off topic but hopefully it will serve to make the point that wealth can be created for the benefit of all rather than one simply taking it from another.

In 1893 the Launceston City Council (Tas) decided to do something previously unheard of. Public electrification. Sure, plenty of places had electric trams and street lights and even Hobart introduced electric trams that year.

But the LCC had a much bigger plan. Electricity for the masses. And so Tasmania's hydro-electric age, which came to dominate practically everything, had begun. And on the 10th of December 1895 at 8pm the first turbine at Duck Reach was switched on...

By 1910 the privately owned Hydro-Electric Power and Metallurgical Company unveiled its plans for what at the time was a massive project. A major hydro-electric scheme, carbide plant and zinc smelter. Despite all manner of financial and physical difficulties, it was built. By this time the state government was in on the potential of the then new technology - electricity - to radically transform life as it then was.

By the 1930's hydro-electricity was the centrepiece of plans to lift the state out of the depression. And not just electricity but locally produced paper, another world first using hardwood. Brains and money, both government and private, at work for the benefit of all.

Forward to the 1950's and the Hydro had not only thousands of employees but even had it's own offices overseas to attract the necessary migrant labour. No longer a purely economic transformation, but a cultural one too. And directly related industry was employing literally tens of thousands of workers in a state that still has less than half a million people.

And today there are still many thousands employed as a direct result of those brave early decisions taken in defiance of the Commonwealth who said it was too big a risk and the disbelievers in the other states. Around two thirds of Tasmania's overseas exports to this day are a consequence of these earlier decisions. And there wouldn't be too many people in Tasmania who don't know someone who has worked for the Hydro, the zinc works (Zinifex), Norske Skog, TEMCO etc. 

And millions of tonnes of coal are saved each and every year through the use of renewable hydro-electricity.

And it all started because someone saw the potential to make a better future not only for themselves, but for others too. Literally tens if not (over the years) hundreds of thousands of workers trained and employed. Food on the table for ordinary families because a few with enough money, brains and a positive attitude took the risks to make it happen. 

And by the way, the history of the Victorian power industry in the Latrobe Valley is similarly a tale of risks taken for public benefit. Again it was a few with the brains and, in this case government money, that made it happen. Light and power for all and employment (direct and indirect) for literally millions over the years.

Real wealth created by productive industry. Not one getting rich at the expense of others but rather a case of everyone better off through their own contribution be it capital, knowledge or physical labour. And we wouldn't be sitting here right now on the internet if nobody had taken those risks.


----------



## Hanrahan (19 September 2005)

Why not start on something easy like the meaning of life and progress to wealth creation *after* we have solved the first enigma?


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

Gerry Harvey, of Harvey Normans, another fine example of greed/wealth.

His company thrives of the success of the "buy now pay later scheme", this same scheme is backed by the GE money lending group.

The GE money group lends money to customers of Harvey Norman at a whopping 27.5% interest rate.

You go into his stores wanting to buy a T.V. and you end up with the T.V. and a GE credit card with far more credit avaliable that what was originally required.  Hmmm wonder why that happens. LOL

So really is Gerry Harvey a bright success or is he just bleeding the youth by offering excessive credit at filthy interest rates.

If it wasn't for GE, Gerry Harvey, would be nothing!


----------



## Hanrahan (19 September 2005)

I have just finalised a 5yr episode with Optus and a contract with my daughter. _Corporate pedophiles_ is not too strong a word (or 2) for dozens of retailers today.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> HisSo really is Gerry Harvey a bright success or is he just bleeding the youth by offering excessive credit at filthy interest rates.
> 
> If it wasn't for GE, Gerry Harvey, would be nothing!



I can see your point there. But to be fair I must point out that nobody forces anyone to accept the credit just because it is offered to them.

What about, for example, tobacco companies? Everyone knows it's a dangerous product that can lead to death. And yet go to any nightclub or even just out on the town on a Saturday night and start counting the number of young people that DON'T smoke. That's especially the case of those into the pubs/clubs scene.

If I recall correctly you live in Adelaide - so go and sit outside the Austral Hotel or go to Heaven this Saturday night and you'll soon see what I mean. A LOT of people smoke despite knowing full well that it's dangerous to health. Someone has smoked their first cigarette while you were reading this...

They know it's dangerous but they do it anyway. They could quit (been there, done that so nobody say it can't be done   ) but they choose not to. I don't see any tobacco company employees standing there placing cigarettes between lips, lighting them, forcing people to draw on them, inhale and then exhale. The _individual_ made the decision to start using what they already knew to be a dangerous and addictive product. And they make the decision to not even seriously attempt to quit in most cases.

I could likewise kill myself with electricity right now. Do I blame the power supplier or is it my own stupidity for messing about with it? Do I blame Caltex if I douse myself with petrol and catch fire? What if I don't look when crossing the road and get run over by that proverbial bus? As an adult I ought to know that electricity, petrol and buses (and debt, cigarettes and plenty of other things) are dangerous.

Short of banning credit purchases of consumer items outright (possibly not such a bad idea) I really can't see how we solve this problem. It's like alcohol - do we ban it to protect drunks from themselves (even though it wouldn't work) or do we just accept it that most people use it reasonably responsibly?


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

Point taken, but I guess when you just want a fridge, then you just want the credit to buy the fridge and not the attaching credit card that comes with it.

Other compaines just start a credit account at the store of purchase and there are no extra credit facilities attached.

Harvery Norman is not a bank, but a theiving bank with high interest rates!


----------



## Julia (19 September 2005)

Kris:

re the evil credit-offering retailers:  do you think they should be banned because we as consumers are unable to accept personal responsiblity in the decisions we make.  Take your premise to its logical conclusion and personal choice would totally give way to even more government legislation denying us our right to make our own personal choices.

This is somewhat off the topic but in Australia it is illegal not to vote.
New Zealand has just held its election.  Voting there is optional.  They had an over 80 % turnout.  Wouldn't Australia be better off counting the votes from the people who care enough to take an intelligent interest, and thus discounting the meaningless votes from that large section of the community who just go to the ballot and make marks in boxes without any comprehension of what they are voting for.

Sorry.  I've gone right off topic.  Just couldn't help having a mental picture of the future if we give up our right to make personal choices, be it regarding credit or anything else.

Julia


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2005)

Julia said:
			
		

> This is somewhat off the topic but in Australia it is illegal not to vote.
> New Zealand has just held its election.  Voting there is optional.  They had an over 80 % turnout.  Wouldn't Australia be better off counting the votes from the people who care enough to take an intelligent interest, and thus discounting the meaningless votes from that large section of the community who just go to the ballot and make marks in boxes without any comprehension of what they are voting for.
> Julia



Having had some political involvement I can say with certainty that things that are optional most certainly ARE used to swing outcomes against the wishes of the majority. Voting must remain compulsory unless we accept minority groups gaining, in practice, near-absolute control.

It's not hard to get 2% or so of the population organised to push a certain agenda. If only 50% are voting and it needs a 3% swing to change the government then that makes one heck of a difference. It literally changes the government and ensures that the minority group gets whatever it happens to want this time.

I can recall something that had about 1% (literally) public support being pushed very heavily by the global Green movement (which has plenty of resources to throw at these things) to the point of nearly happening. With just 1% local support!!! (survey figure). But with so few people willing to take a stand these things can get through...

And I've also seen a whole series of government-run public meetings stacked by the same 10 or so people so that every single meeting produced the same outcome. They knew how it worked and scattered themselves around the room accordingly. The outcome was contrary to the politices of not only the government running the meetings but, it seems, to most of the others at the meetings. If everyone were forced to attend such meetings then they couldn't be stacked due to the sheer numbers involved. Same with voting.


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

Julia, you are older and wiser than the naive 18 year old, who has just moved out of home and needs a fridge.  

She/He goes to Harvey Norman and buys this fridge on credit, not knowing that a credit card arrives in the post a few weeks later.

Not only do they have a fridge on credit, but an account, that gives them even more credit, that they never asked for or probably could not afford to pay back anyway.

Was he/she ever explained of the filthy interest rate, probably not, nor the credit card, nor the sudden increase in credit, that came with this card.

Thumbs down to Gerry Harvery!


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Point taken, but I guess when you just want a fridge, then you just want the credit to buy the fridge and not the attaching credit card that comes with it.
> 
> Other compaines just start a credit account at the store of purchase and there are no extra credit facilities attached.
> 
> Harvery Norman is not a bank, but a theiving bank with high interest rates!



Didn't realise that you actually get a _card_ when you buy from Harvey Norman. Now I know why they thought I was strange paying $300 cash for something I bought there!

I expect Harvey Norman gets some sort of commission from other purchases on the card too.


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2005)

Yes most probably...maybe even a trailing commision


----------



## Dan_ (19 September 2005)

Kris,

Consumers can not be forced into taking cards they don't want. If you wish to buy something from Hardly Normal on interest free and to do this you need to take up a card then simply request the credit limit be equal to the amount you purchase. Then at the end of the interest free period (where you have paid off the full amount so you don't incur any high interest rates) simply cancel the card.

At the end of the day you sign up to agree to this and  as a consumer you have many choices


----------



## Kauri (20 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Ahhh but what did he do.....made everyone that bought a pc, and turned it on, was forced to see microsoft products on their computer.
> 
> Consumers had no option when buying a complete computer package, it was supplied.
> 
> ...





  Bill Gates - reality check

Bill Gates  -  Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the 
Head with this!  To anyone with kids of any age, here's some advice.

Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school.  He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

   Rule 1:  Life is not fair - get used to it!

   Rule 2:  The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will
               expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

   Rule 3:  You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school.  
               You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

   Rule 4:  If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a 
              boss.

   Rule 5:  Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity.  Your
              Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping:   they called it opportunity.

   Rule 6:  If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't 
              whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

   Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now.  They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you  thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing (getting rid of lice) in the closet of your own room.

   Rule 8:  Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT.  In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer.  This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

   Rule 9:  Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF.   Do that on your own time.

   Rule 10:  Television is NOT real life.  In real life people actually
                 have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

   Rule 11: Be nice to nerds.  Chances are you'll end up working for one.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2005)

Kauri said:
			
		

> Rule 11: Be nice to nerds.  Chances are you'll end up working for one.





LOL Good one Bill!


----------



## tech/a (20 September 2005)

You sure he wasnt having a coffee with Kris?

NAH!!,Kris wouldnt have the time---Gates would be too greedy to even warrant a meeting. Still bet he'd pay for the coffee---after you offered of course!---better still he'd buy the coffee shop!! Then it would be free---
Clever guy this Gates!


----------



## malachii (20 September 2005)

Having been in the situation that Kris is talking about - I moved out of home (agreed I'm now 32 but was 19 then) and needed to buy a new fridge.  Went into the major electrical stores who were all offering the various credit cards (AGC comes to mind I think) at extortionate rates and decided to go elsewhere and buy a 2nd hand fridge (shock horror).  It cost me $25 and still goes like a dream today - it's not pretty (looks a bit dinged and still covered in stickers) but guess what - I could afford it.  I get the impression that you think that there is no choice other than to go in and use credit from these marauding rip off merchants.  You dont have to have brand new, you dont have to live in the most expensive suburb, you dont have to have the new car/clothes/mobile etc.  You dont have to be ripped off - it is a choice and the sooner people realize it is THEIR choice the better.  You can go on blaming whoever you like but at the end of the day YOU made the choice to sign on the dotted line, YOU chose to live in the expensive suburb, YOU chose to not buy property earlier, YOU chose to buy the fridge from Harvey Norman, YOU chose to buy brand new and not hunt for a 2nd hand bargain, YOU signed for the credit card and YOU chose to not pay it off as quickly as you could.  

You can argue age/wisdom/role models or anything else you like.  It's no-ones fault but mine, sure I'll make mistakes but if I (that means me, me only, just me or more commonly known as me!!!) accept responsibility for them, I'll learn, gain wisdom and hopefully not repeat the mistake.  

I work for a company where the main ethos is "Never be on the end of a blame chain".  Unfortunately, with the topic we are talking about here, the person, whether they are 18 or 80, is on the end of the blame chain and needs to take responsibility for it!


----------



## krisbarry (20 September 2005)

If no-one is to blame, except for yourself, 

why then do some silly fools accept this offer for  credit @ 27.5%?

There is no excuse for this kind of interest.

A wise shopper would go elsewhere for their credit, or save the money, but a few silly fools take up the offer and...

thats why Gerry Harveys slogan is " Go Harvey Go..."  LOL


----------



## Joe Blow (20 September 2005)

I'm 35 and I just bought my first new fridge five years ago. Nobody is forced to get involved in credit. Like Happy said, buy second hand goods, brew your own beer, take responsibility for your consumption. Nobody needs a new fridge. People want a new fridge. Big difference.

The bottom line is people know what they are getting themselves into. If they don't, then they simply aren't paying attention and deserve to learn the hard way like many others before them. Life is full of hard lessons. I have a mate that declared himself bankrupt after going on a spending spree on credit. He knew what he was doing, he just thought he could handle it. He thought wrong. He paid the price and is a more responsible person for it now.


----------



## malachii (20 September 2005)

Kris

I think you're answering your own question:

Because they are SILLY FOOLS!  

Unfortunately there will always be silly fools and there will always people who will gladly seperate them from their money amongst other things.  If there wasn't the demand for these things, they wouldn't survive in the market place.  

People have a right to be silly fools if they want though.  You cant legislate them from being foolish and you cant remove their God given right.  But we can educate them and I've found the best way is by example.  I like to think I am responsible in my wealth creation and the more "succesful" I become the more the silly fools take notice and ask "how".  This gives my wife and I a chance to maybe help them a little and point them in the right direction but again - THEY have to choose - no one else can do it for them - THEY must take the ultimate responsibility for THEIR actions/decisions.

Malachii


----------



## krisbarry (20 September 2005)

A fridge is an essential service in any home right so it is not a question of need, it is a must.

Not unless you live in Canada, like I did for a year and you chill your 6-pack of beer in the snow.

True no-one is forced to have credit but no-one should be forced to pay 27.5% interest, that is criminal

We need to have more rigid credit checks, and far more laws for credit providers.

If banks can offer much cheaper credit so can finance companies.

I agree, my fridge is second hand too, got it at a garage sale, works a treat!


----------



## Joe Blow (20 September 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> A fridge is an essential service in any home right so it is not a question of need, it is a must.
> 
> I agree, my fridge is second hand too, got it at a garage sale, works a treat!




Yes, I agree a fridge is a necessity... a new fridge however is not.

Glad to hear your second hand fridge is going well... never had a problem with mine either.


----------



## clowboy (20 September 2005)

The thing with rates like 25%+ is that generally they dont qualify for lower rates.

And them being SILLY FOOLS really hits the nail on the head.

I once heard a story about Cash Convertors and their "credit lending" facility.

I am only going on what i was told but apparently you lend them something of value (golf clubs) and they loan you it's value (as if you sold it to them).

the rate is some ridiculous figure 30%+ and you are given x days to pay it back.  If you dont pay it back within given time frame you still owe them the money (interest calulated daily) and they sell your product for a profit.

Now that is nuts.


----------



## visual (3 July 2006)

Report on this very issue last night on 60minutes.Apparently these moronic y gen. want us all to give way to them,because apparently they cant wait forever,wait for what,was my first impression.They want a lifestyle that their parents have after years of working and scraping,except they want all this without the saving and scraping.Most of the people interviewed hadnt held a job for more then a few months ,yet had a lifestyle of someone who has established himself or herself.Who taught these morons to want and not give?Apparently they also have no intention of paying tax for the x ers pensions.I certainly didnt bring my children up like this,so if this moronic group is a representation of the new gen Y,where did they learn to be so selfish,at school?the government? with its give aways.They might have to pay for their education now, which apparently is a bug bear but they also enjoy government hand out wich the previous generation,didnt have.Who the hell do they think is paying for that.


----------



## Happy (3 July 2006)

When we care for our child we assume that child will care for us, well we might be right/wrong, it’s a toss.


----------



## Julia (3 July 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Report on this very issue last night on 60minutes.Apparently these moronic y gen. want us all to give way to them,because apparently they cant wait forever,wait for what,was my first impression.They want a lifestyle that their parents have after years of working and scraping,except they want all this without the saving and scraping.Most of the people interviewed hadnt held a job for more then a few months ,yet had a lifestyle of someone who has established himself or herself.Who taught these morons to want and not give?Apparently they also have no intention of paying tax for the x ers pensions.I certainly didnt bring my children up like this,so if this moronic group is a representation of the new gen Y,where did they learn to be so selfish,at school?the government? with its give aways.They might have to pay for their education now, which apparently is a bug bear but they also enjoy government hand out wich the previous generation,didnt have.Who the hell do they think is paying for that.




I saw some of the same programme, Visual, before becoming so irritated that I turned it off.  What arrogant, egocentric young people!  I don't honestly believe they are typical of their generation.  The main protagonist was interviewed on ABC Radio some months back.  I think he wrote some sort of book.  Presumably he's just doing his best to obtain free publicity.

Julia


----------



## visual (3 July 2006)

Julia,I didnt switch off because I was so flabergasted ,surely I kept saying out loud there has got to be a point to this moron.But no, you are right he was simply looking to adverstise his book,which by the looks of it simply shows that he an illiterate ,unskilled,uncreative type of guy who probably only got his book published because he knew someone.The title included the word f888k off.So right from the start this book ,would fall off my radar as soon as I looked at it.
The other thing that had me gasping for air,was the selfishness demonstrated by the Charles Woolley researcher who after holding her job for barely 5 months not only wanted his job but felt that she was entitled to spend 800dollars on a coat.They may not represent their generation but that story seemed to create the feeling that they did.And that was enough to


----------



## mlennox (3 July 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Julia,I didnt switch off because I was so flabergasted ,surely I kept saying out loud there has got to be a point to this moron.But no, you are right he was simply looking to adverstise his book,which by the looks of it simply shows that he an illiterate ,unskilled,uncreative type of guy who probably only got his book published because he knew someone.The title included the word f888k off.So right from the start this book ,would fall off my radar as soon as I looked at it.
> The other thing that had me gasping for air,was the selfishness demonstrated by the Charles Woolley researcher who after holding her job for barely 5 months not only wanted his job but felt that she was entitled to spend 800dollars on a coat.They may not represent their generation but that story seemed to create the feeling that they did.And that was enough to




Times are changing visual. I wont hold the same job for nearly as long as you did, it's got nothing to do with loyalty its got to do with the way companys are structured (hiring externally etc.).

I didn't actually get to see the program but by the sounds of it they did the usual commercial channel thing and shocked people like yourself. Personally 20 i've worked 3 different jobs and recently moved city, i chose not to go to uni. It's almost expected these days that i will change roles/jobs within the next 5 years.

I expect to work hard to earn a living and am doing so. So don't label my generation off some crappy so called "investigative journalism" you want to watch some real journalism turn on 4 corners.


----------



## Yezzy (3 July 2006)

That guy and any person like that is a deadset idiot. He's said something about not wanting to stay in a job for longer than two years, but still wanting a good position. Where's the sense in that? Which business in their right mind would train and promote someone on the basis that they would leave within two years.

I don't like the whole "generation" thing, because it covers too broad a base. Being twenty I hate having the whole addicted to credit stereotype. Just like people who are older, have worked hard, paid off a house and maybe bought another for retirement purposes getting slandered as being greedy.

Don't worry about those two being representative of younger people, they're just morons.


----------



## visual (3 July 2006)

Mlennox,
I have two children in your generation,I was not crappying on your generation as your put it,your fellow genY  were doing that,one of them even wrote a book so the rest of you would have a guide!My son even asked me,mum do you think I`m like that!of course not.
But the thing that worries me is that once again at the head of our society we are going to have inappropiate people .
Also please understand that I both admire someone who can go out there find himself a job and better himself.
The example that they were using on channel nine were of people who were swapping jobs like tissues but somehow it wasnt allowing them to have the choices they wanted(money).Spending money however didnt seem connected to their ability to pay.


----------



## professor_frink (3 July 2006)

As someone who comes from that generation visual I would have to agree with you. You probably won't find that any young people on this forum fit into that category(although I could be wrong), but there alot of people I know who do. 



> The example that they were using on channel nine were of people who were swapping jobs like tissues but somehow it wasnt allowing them to have the choices they wanted(money).Spending money however didnt seem connected to their ability to pay.




This is pretty much how alot of young people today are. We have been brought up in a society where we have been told not to settle for anything below what we think we deserve(and we've all been told we deserve everything), combined with the fact that most young people today wouldn't even know how to define the word "recession". Combine this with the proliferation of easy credit via interest free purchases on electrical goods, payment plans for mobile phones and lending practices that would have shocked bankers 30 years ago and you have an entire generation of spoilt kids that think they should be able to walk straight out of uni or even high school and expect a high paying job to pay for our credit card purchases. Is it entirely our own fault? Maybe. But then again, which generation raised these people and taught them what they know now?


----------



## mlennox (3 July 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Mlennox,
> I have two children in your generation,I was not crappying on your generation as your put it,your fellow genY  were doing that,one of them even wrote a book so the rest of you would have a guide!My son even asked me,mum do you think I`m like that!of course not.
> But the thing that worries me is that once again at the head of our society we are going to have inappropiate people .
> Also please understand that I both admire someone who can go out there find himself a job and better himself.
> The example that they were using on channel nine were of people who were swapping jobs like tissues but somehow it wasnt allowing them to have the choices they wanted(money).Spending money however didnt seem connected to their ability to pay.




i'd agree there are people out there my age that don't understand the true value of money. But much as it annoys you, there will always be people like this. Its almost like gambling, spending money becomes an addiction.. I have friends in 15k debt on their credit cards, they know the consequences of their spending but still spend, i dont judge these people as idiots as it is a personal choice much the same as gambling.

Eventually one way or the other they will have to pay the money back. I'd be willing to say that you know people your age like this ? but i don't see you ranting and raving about "their ability to pay"


----------



## lewstherin (3 July 2006)

Yeah, I'm 25 and also thought that author dude was a jackass.  I've been working since uni (paid my own way through uni) - about 7 years now.

A few things I do feel differentiates the problems facing gen X/Y vs the problems the Boomers experienced:

1.) Real estate is a lot less affordable today than it was 20 years ago.  
My folks worked hard and were able to afford a house in a fair area on a very average income.  My wife and I work just as hard, earning an above average income and can barely afford a similar sized house in a poorish area.  My generation will be a bunch of renters out of necessity rather than choice, and the landlords will be the Boomers.  As such, this generation will essentially fund many a Boomer's retirement through rental payments.
The whole land situation could be remedied if the states released more land quicker.  I think there's an element of protection being given to the Boomers by the states through the restrictive land release policies around.  

I personally can't wait for the Boomers to start dying; hopefully that will free up some property for me to get a look into owning my own house someday.  Unfortunately, by then it will probably be too late to have kids.

2.) The workplace is far more dynamic than the Boomer days.  
Consulting and contracting are the order of the day in most places, and working for the same employer is far less common.  No business is safe from competition and technology is driving more advances in more fields than every before.  Keeping up is difficult for anyone in the workforce, and many are getting left behind.  Gen X/Y may be earning more earlier, but it comes at a price in the lack of security and stability.

3.) Credit is way more acceptable as a way of life.
I personally do not live beyond my means given the foolishness of a credit-fuelled existence, but I see it happening to many of my peers.  Marketing and social conditioning is incredibly pervasive compared to the Boomer days and the weaker minded folks are getting sucked in.  The willingness of banks to extend huge amounts of credit coupled with the tidal wave of cheap commodities available for purchase is overwhelming.
I am thankful that I was raised to appreciate lifestyle and solid assets over goods.  Many gen Y's aren't so lucky, as they see their Boomer parents living an extremely materialistic life and are raised to want the same, with credit the ready option.

4.) Children are harder to fund today than in previous decades.
When I consider how much having a child will set us back, I get pretty worried.  At this point, I don't believe we will be able to have children and afford a house.  Good schooling is insanely expensive, child care (given that both of us need to work) is steep, and all the goods and services that a child requires (swimming lessons, clothes, food etc) mount up more than ever before.  The govt. grants really don't make much of a dent in child costs.

When I look at the future for gen x/y, I certainly feel that its a fairly gloomy one for the "battlers" of this generation.  Expect them to have less children, have less assets, more credit and more bankruptcies than ever before.


----------



## professor_frink (3 July 2006)

How funny! According to wikipedia I manage to fit into multiple "generation" categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y 

Being a 1980 model, I fit into-

generation x
generation y
the mtv generation
the consciousness revolution


----------



## happytrader (3 July 2006)

As far as I am aware real estate and businesses throughout the generations have largely been funded on borrowed money. I see absolutely nothing wrong with borrowing to buy appreciating assets.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## Matt123 (3 July 2006)

Just throught I'd throw my bit in. I'm a 19 year old living at home and going to uni. It's a full time course for 5.5 years and I'm paying it all upfront to recieve the 20% discount. I could probably afford to pay for it all myself but my parents generously offered to chip in, though if I fail a unit I have to pay them back the cost of that unit.

I worked at a supermarket for 3.5 years and have now quit as I now qualify for youth allowance. In some strange twist if you earn over $18k in the 18 months after you leave high school you qualify as independent and so can get youth allowance if you are studying full time. So i quit my job as I can live of youth allowance and cash I get from tutoring. I have also saved over $18k from work and so I get at least $1k a year in interest from that. I have just started up with shares and have made $600 in 3 weeks from $3k, though this is something I will only do on holidays. In the summer break I will hopefully  get vacation work at an engineering firm and earn around $500 a week, if things go to plan. I have a phone, and borrow our third car when I need it, although I bus where ever I can. I aim to have enough for a homeloan when I finish uni in four years.

I have never used or needed credit, although I am considering getting a credit card as it simplifies some transactions, such as buying over the net (which I hardly ever do anyway). No one ever told me to do this, but it seemed obvious. I guess it must have been because my parents are "financially conscious". I no people whose parents make bucketloads of cash, and then spend as much of it as possible. Their kids then do the same, except without making the bucketloads of cash. The reason they do this is that they have become accustomed to the lifestyle that their parents provided them with and do not want to part with it. Parents do this because they want to provide the best for their children, and they have the ability to do so. But when a teen leaves home and works full time for the minimum wage, they are not going to have the money to support that lifestyle. OK, so some of you may blame the parents for not educating their children about finances, etc, but it is still an individuals choice how to live their life.


----------



## Rafa (3 July 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> . Is it entirely our own fault? Maybe. But then again, which generation raised these people and taught them what they know now?





Spot on, its easy to blame the young people, but 

-who is incharge of the big corporations that convince people to greed is good, and lure them into debt?

-who is responsible for the moral, godless vacuum that has enveloped society?

- who is responsible for within one/two generations completely thrashing the set of values and moral fibre of society that brought us to where we are... resulting in millions of poeple thinking the meaning of life can only be found in having more and more and consuming more and more and to have it all NOW!

- who is resposible for bringing up a generation of people who don't want to struggle for anything and complain about the smallest amount of pain and suffering and inconvinience!!!


The answer to all this is their parents!!! 


PS: Well Intentioned parents I must add, who thought they do not need to teach their kids the traditional way, about society, about rules, about GOD, about right and wrong, but rather that we can bring them up in a new way, where there is no right and wrong, rather 'whatever feels right!'

Well, the results of this experiment are there for all to see...


----------



## lewstherin (3 July 2006)

Now that the Visa/Mastercard debit cards have become available, my sole reason for needing a credit card is gone.  My Visa debit card has been great so far, all-in-one transactional account, costs far less than a credit card and I never used the credit aspect anyway.


----------



## professor_frink (3 July 2006)

hey rafa check your PM box. I sent you a message ages ago and you never read it. Or you did and you've been ignoring me


----------



## krisbarry (3 July 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Spot on, its easy to blame the young people, but
> 
> -who is incharge of the big corporations that convince people to greed is good, and lure them into debt?
> 
> ...




Well said, the experimental results are in, and the results conclude that baby boomers raising generation x'ers and y's say they have failed dismally!

Baby boomers may have every good intention at heart but just have a look at your children?


----------



## visual (3 July 2006)

mlennox said:
			
		

> almost like gambling, spending money becomes an addiction..
> 
> i dont judge these people as idiots as it is a personal choice much the same as gambling.
> 
> ...




1 excuse
2 excuse,
3 wrong ,they will declare bankruptcy and me and you will pay,they will just get on their merry way.
4 You dont know me ,so how can you make that observation.
I think of these same people as losers,or spongers,now you know.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 July 2006)

Ah yes, easy credit. Lots of money being pumped out at zero cost by Japan's central bank finding it's way into the global credit markets. Nothing new there but with Japan now "removing excess liquidity" at a rather alarming rate, just watch as the house that cheap credit built crumbles.

Shutting off cheap credit to the global markets is little different to shutting off the power to a city. Most people don't give power (or cheap credit) a second thought until it's gone. And then they remember the warnings of astute engineers (or economists) who warned that there was trouble ahead. 

At that point the "benefits" of saving 5 or 10% on the power bill (or borrowing ridiculous amounts of money at low interest rates) fade into insignificance as the relatively small saving turns into a much larger cost. That's when the consultants who sought to eek out some minor efficiency gain by trimming engineering standards to the bone (or debt rampers who preached the virtue of saving 0.5% and borrowing more on the basis of it) suddenly disappear...

It's a generational thing to the extent that markets and politics are cyclical. The time will come when the public _wants_ major investment in energy (and other) infrastructure with all the environmental issues that entails. That day will come and, if the plans from various state governments for major new water supply (and in some cases power) infrastructure are any indication, isn't that far away. Likewise the day will come when debt is considered a curse and houses once again sell for 3.6 times the earnings of the people that live in them.

IMO all big things like energy, water, credit are cyclical and we've seen the peak of the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) brigade when it comes to infrastructure and we're about to see the peak of the "how much can I borrow" attitude to credit. The two are linked since both BANANA and "how much can I borrow" rely on the unsustainable practice of consuming past surpluses. At some point that surplus is gone and you have to start building again. That's when attitudes change rather quickly...


----------



## Julia (3 July 2006)

Professor Frink, Lewstherin, Matt123

After reading your posts I feel much more optimistic about your generation.
Good for you.  Thanks.

Julia


----------



## Rafa (4 July 2006)

Kauri said:
			
		

> Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school.  He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
> 
> Rule 1:  Life is not fair - get used to it!
> 
> ...





This is awesome...  pretty much sums up the differences in our upbringing as opposed to the upbringing of our parents or their parents...


----------



## Julia (4 July 2006)

Rafa

Yes, I came across that piece of wisdom a little while back.  It's something those arrogant young people on TV on Sunday night should tape to their bathroom mirrors.

When they complain about the current wealth of baby boomers, they conveniently overlook the sacrifices and hard work that was applied when the baby boomers were their age and older.

Are they prepared to work a full time job plus two part time jobs, furnish their house with second hand articles, forgo much entertainment/eating out and travel in order to pay off a mortgage, and lots more?

Julia


----------



## swingstar (4 July 2006)

I think I'm different to the typical gen Y. The only credit I have I used to trade with. I'm not against credit in that sense, in fact I think being able to borrow money is extremely valuable. I never told my parents (baby boomers) until after I had made money. If I didn't make money, well I'd be up **** creek


----------



## Rafa (4 July 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Rafa
> 
> Yes, I came across that piece of wisdom a little while back.  It's something those arrogant young people on TV on Sunday night should tape to their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> ...





Agree 100%.... I certainly have no intention of expecting any thing from my parents... What they have earnt they are free to spend in whatever way they choose... 

They have brought me up well, with solid beliefs and values and that is all I could have ever asked for...


----------



## nelly (4 July 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> How funny! According to wikipedia I manage to fit into multiple "generation" categories.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
> 
> ...



Hiya Professoree
I'm a baby boomer-buster from the beat generation..... I just missed out on being a generation X consciousness revolutionary......[pity]


----------

