Consider: Everyone in the generation that started 150 years ago is dead. Most people in the generation that started 50 years ago are still alive. Is this “intergenerationally unfair”? Is it even “unfair”? This is a pretty devastating difference between these generations. Yet no serious person would claim that it is “intergenerationally unfair”. We need to be able to discuss generational differences without automatically treating disadvantages to one of them as examples of intergenerational unfairness. This article was prompted by “Commentary on “Intergenerational Fairness Index” by the Intergenerational Foundation“. That article was prompted by (and analysed) “Intergenerational Fairness Index – . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
The people in every generation start by being totally dependent on older generations. Then they spend much of their lives co-supporting both younger and older generations. Then they typically become dependent on younger generations. Then they die. Reminder Having children is a life-style choice. It is not a biological imperative. It is not a duty to the state. Having children is a choice, at least in the developed world. (That includes the choice about whether to take sensible precautions and/or have an abortion). It could be described as an extended hobby, but since the consequences tend to be life-long, including . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
See this report published on December 18, 2012: The Global Religious Landscape A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Major Religious Groups as of 2010 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Summary Every religion is a minority religion. Whatever a person’s religious beliefs, most religious people in the world have beliefs that contradict that person’s beliefs. Christianity in its entirety is a minority religion, with about 32% of the world’s whole population, and about 38% of the world’s religious population. (And, of course, there are many incompatible beliefs within Christian denominations, with Roman Catholics about 50% . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
Her (co-authored) book “Bartley Green & District Through Time” has just been published. Her third local history book was “Selly Oak and Bournbrook Through Time“, published earlier this year. Her second local history book was “Cotteridge Through Time“, published last year. Her first local history book was “King’s Norton Past and Present“.
I am writing an article to post here to be called “Generation by generation – are things getting better or worse?” Obviously this needs to take into account what is happening about “intergenerational fairness”. But what does that term mean? I started with “Intergenerational Fairness Index – Measuring Changes in Intergenerational Fairness in the United Kingdom” from the Intergenerational Foundation, since its title matched what I wanted. But it actually demonstrates what not to do! I’ve written a commentary (below) on that document in order to discuss what “intergenerational fairness” means and how to measure it. Summary of commentary on . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
1. The bizarre voting system of the Church of England has confirmed: 26 seats in the House of Lords are to remain reserved for men! This is in a (supposedly) modern democracy. You couldn’t make it up! 2. The Pope has published a book confirming that Catholics must believe in the Trinity and the virgin birth and the resurrection. This is something Christianity did make up! I love these ongoing demonstrations of the stupidity of Christianity and the need for secularism.
Reminder 1: there was no “1945-65 baby boom”! This article is primarily about the big baby boom from about 1955 to about 1974, and a smaller one from about 1978 to 1992. Reminder 2: blame must not be attached to an “accident of birth”, and belonging to a baby boom is such an accident. And there is no implication that the people of any baby boom did anything wrong that helped cause the housing crisis. Summary Although the birth rate of the post-war generation hasn’t unduly influenced governments to favour this generation, it surely had an impact on the housing . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
This is weeks-old news, but I have written about it elsewhere so I’m posting most of what I wrote here too. Lord Bichard said: “We are now prepared to say to people who are not looking for work, if you don’t look for work you don’t get benefits, so if you are old and you are not contributing in some way or another maybe there is some penalty attached to that.” Obviously there were responses from groups representing older people. For example, Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said: “This amounts to little more than national service . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
Yesterday I refuted the idea that the post-war generation has excessive political influence. As an introduction to that article, I quoted the description of David Willetts’ book “The Pinch: how the baby boomers took their children’s future – and why they should give it back“: “The baby boom of 1945-65 produced the biggest, richest generation that Britain has ever known. Today, at the peak of their power and wealth, baby boomers now run our country; by virtue of their sheer demographic power, they have fashioned the world around them in a way that meets all of their housing, healthcare and financial . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]
There is a story that after World War 2 there was a significantly higher birth rate for perhaps 20 years (called “the baby boom”) that resulted in a generation or cohort of people who by sheer voting power and demographic political influence ensured that governments made policies and legislation that favoured this generation at the expense of others. A typical summary of this is seen at the description of David Willetts’ book “The Pinch: how the baby boomers took their children’s future – and why they should give it back“: “The baby boom of 1945-65 produced the biggest, richest generation that . . . . . . . . . . [Read complete post]