Down to my second last million

Bearing in mind that this 'story' appeared in a news paper and therefore may prove erroneous, its still an eye opener.

From an article on how over 50's are squeezing the young out of jobs, it features a fellow called Colin King aged 60 who (with his wife) sold a garden- center business for £1.25m. Or in simple language £1,250,000.

He was bored by not working so now does some. He added, "We also wanted to make sure we had enough money for old age because £1,250,000 doesn't buy you much in the way of an annuity these days. (£75,000 per annum actually). I can now see myself working to 80.

Where do these people come from?

I would guess that this wealthy man who works even though he doesn't really need to is in a minority.

Most of the over 50's who are "squeezing" the young out of jobs don't have any choice (including me!).

I'd happily give up my job if I had £75k pa from an annuity.  It wouldn't necessarily go to a young person though - plenty of over-50s have been made redundant and need new jobs!

The angle I'm working on here, is how the guy is talking as though he's barely got an income he could survive on.

The guys not so strange, I guess most people look at work as if to say "one more year won't do any harm" and as for 50 somethings squeezing the young out, that's ludicrous, most of the businesses I see (admittedly all manufacturing) would fall apart without the older people.

Just my personal observation but there is not the work ethic any more. If any younger people want the premium jobs they need to do what the older people do, be reliable, turn up every day and do your work to the highest standard. The young spend 40 - 50% of their working day catching up on social stuff and playing about on mobiles. Look to the average Company mbile bill and you could virtually put them in age order.

I'd have to disagree with you their EKGO, work ethic isn't age related. some people work and enjoy it, others work and hate it. The so called work ethic is nothing to be lauded.

We work because for the most part we have to. Doesn't mean we want to or that we enjoy it or gain anything other than financial benefit from it. If the financial reward is not enough and doesn't make up for the pain then who is really going to want to work?

My job is pants. There is no career structure, the pay is rubbish, the conditions are not good, no perks, plenty of hassle and red tapes and hoops. Appeals to students, those who don't need the income, young people who just want a job for the money, older people who just want some pin money. You can't tell who will work hard and who will be a lazy git based on age. Some people give everything, others are coasting and a couple have put their feet up. (the latter group are not the young ones, they for the most part form the first group).

What was it, pay peanuts, get monkeys. If you take the piss out of your staff they will take the piss out of you. Young people need to believe that they are working for a reason, they need to see a future. If they don't see that in their job they'll look for it elsewhere.

Even older people need to see a future in what they do. A temp manager one place I worked said I should be more than willing to do training in my own time. I had to let them know that they were living in cloud cuckoo land. training, for what? There was no future or career progression in that job. I couldn't train to progress up any career ladder. I had to look outside of work for my ambitions and fulfil aims here.

If you enjoy your job and it fulfils your needs, then great. That isn't the case for a lot of people.

I'd quite like to know where the whole idea of over 50's "squeezing the young out of jobs" comes from in the first place. What are they meant to do if they can't afford to give up work? Commit voluntary suicide to make way for a younger person?

People seem to forget that the idea of "retirement" has only been around since 1945. It use to be normal that you worked for pretty much your entire life until you grew too infirm, at which point your family took care of you. The difference was that in a highly industrialised nation, with lower life expectancy, there was rarely any shortage of jobs.

I'm not sure the architects of the Welfare State  ever envisaged a time when there wouldn't be enough jobs to go round and people would regularly live to be 100. I admit I've no idea what the answer is but I don't think the solution to 18 year olds  who can't get jobs is 50 year olds on the scrapheap.

If I was leaving school now, I think I'd be finding out which skills were in short supply and which professions were crying out for recruits and gearing my training accordingly.

Interesting about work ethic, where I'm finding a rather odd work ethic is with young people who followed their degree straight afterwards with a masters degree. Subsequently couldn't get a job in their desired field and are now doing basic administration jobs not very well.

I don't know whether it's work ethic perse or just the lack of experience of actual work.

I sort of agree with both EKGO and the wonderfully named Mrs hog mousey

mrs. hog - mousey wrote (see)

What was it, pay peanuts, get monkeys. If you take the piss out of your staff they will take the piss out of you. Young people need to believe that they are working for a reason, they need to see a future. If they don't see that in their job they'll look for it elsewhere.

 

 

But they also have to be proficient at that job before they look down their nose at it. I gave 100% in all paid work I've had over the years, however shitty. Doing a bad job well or making a bad job better shouldn't be beyond anyone. You have pride in your own work and conduct even if those around you are shit.

Re. LD

Anyone who sticks £1,250,000 cash into an annuity that pays £28000 per annum is better off just spending the capital.

Depends what your overheads and expenses are to a large degree.

Mousey I did say it was my personal observation, I do see this in real life, and Kitten is also quite right that younger people do look down their nose at certain jobs. Trouble is everyone is geared up to careers in Media or art where the degrees are heading, then real world steps in, there are few opportunities so the choice is a stark one. I blame the people who gave out raised expectations. Lastly anyone doing a degree then a masters is slightly institutionalised and the period of adjustment from schooling to work is sometimes hard.

No, you don't have to be proficient in any job to look down your nose at it, nor do you have to give 100%. You don't have to do a bad job well at all. Why? For what gain? What does it get you? Sweet FA.

That doesn't mean that any job is a bad job, there are good jobs that people are over qualified for, that doesn't make them bad jobs. There's a difference.

I can give you an example of a bad job, bad employer - poor pay, poor conditions, no future, employer takes piss by continually cutting wages, doesn't pay on time, holds back pay for petty reasons etc. the list goes on. Yes people need work, people with limited skill and ability. There were a couple of young men with Aspergers at the above factory, they struggle to find employment that suits. They couldn't just go into any job so they were stuck.

I've read your post about your issue with your co-worker. It's not unusual for those that have been through university then onto masters etc to struggle. D. had a problem with young engineers, his copany took on those who had done well at university rather than those who had been playing with the tools. As a consequence they had a load of useless engineers that hadn't the first idea about the industry they had just entered.

Starting at the bottom isn't the same as a shit job. However, if you are in the wrong job then that's a different thing altogether. If you don't care about the job that's one thing but if an employer doesn't care about their staff that is quite different.

KK - I don't know if your co-worker just doesn't care or is struggling or what. They do need someone to talk to them if it is effecting your work.
It's similar to where I work. There are those that put themselves out to do a good job and those that can't be arsed. Some feel like the management just don't care.

Making a job better is often impossible.

The real problem is those "over 50's"  who've enjoyed all the benefits of universal free education, bought up all the cheap public housing stock under Maggie, and are now piling up their savings while their children's generation can't afford an evening course course in hairdressing or bricklaying at the local poly let alone a degree.

I would like to believe that a 'work ethic' would lead to some guarantee of success. Unfortunately it seems that more and more, success is something that requires an intangible set of circumstances.

Our society is still flailing around in a system based on the concept of the 'middle classes'. That you work hard, keep your nose clean, follow the rules and you'll get a reward of some sort.

Well the middle classes have destroyed their own system but pretends it still works.

The tragedy for twenty and thirty somethings is that the baby boom generation have organised the infrastructure to ensure that they themselves don't lose.

The rules of 40 years ago don't work anymore.

Somewhat disingenuous telling youngsters to do as you did, when that generation is largely excluded from having a stake in society.

FS, I'm going to emigrate!

Mr Puffy wrote (see)

The real problem is those "over 50's"  who've enjoyed all the benefits of universal free education, bought up all the cheap public housing stock under Maggie, and are now piling up their savings while their children's generation can't afford an evening course course in hairdressing or bricklaying at the local poly let alone a degree.

 

My friends who have (grown up) children didn't buy council houses (didn't go to Uni, either).  They got jobs and bought houses. 

Their children went to University (for free), and are now working and buying their own homes.

People who are in their fifties, their kids are probably finished university by now.  It's those who are in their forties whose kids are having to pay tuition fees.

Times are tough. I've had to make my butler redundant and trade down to an older Rolls Royce.

Life's a bitch. 

In fairness to the guy who sold the garden centre and without knowing any of the facts, I'd take a guess that he's worked hard at building up the business for most of his life. I wouldn't have thought that owning a garden centre was an easy or obvious way to eternal riches.

He's sold it to retire and got bored. I don't really see what the problem is if he wants to work again. He probably employed other people and generated wealth during his time owning the garden centre.

Besides which, how do you know that the job he's planning to do is squeezing a young person out of a job ? He may be opening another business that employs plenty of other people. The job market isn't always a total sum game where his getting a job stops somebody else.

Redjeep! wrote (see)

In fairness to the guy who sold the garden centre and without knowing any of the facts, I'd take a guess that he's worked hard at building up the business for most of his life. I wouldn't have thought that owning a garden centre was an easy or obvious way to eternal riches.

He's sold it to retire and got bored. I don't really see what the problem is if he wants to work again. He probably employed other people and generated wealth during his time owning the garden centre.

 

Besides which, how do you know that the job he's planning to do is squeezing a young person out of a job ? He may be opening another business that employs plenty of other people. The job market isn't always a total sum game where his getting a job stops somebody else.

 

 

 

 

My OP wasn't about the guy taking a job that could have gone to a younger person.

It was about the way he was treating as having £1.25 million pounds in cash as a barely survivable amount of money.

The article in the newspaper would have only made sense if the figure had actually been £125,000.

It may well have been £125,000 but as the story was written by a journalist, it could have been changed to qualify for sensationalist or controversialist.

Don't let truth get in the way of a good story.

Its not about the job.

He didn't say it was barely survivable, he said it didn't buy much annuity, which it doesn't.

£75K by your reconning or £28K by Lou Diamond's reconning - I don't know which is correct, but even the higher figure is relatively small, for 2 people, who've presumably worked hard all their lives to build a successful business, the proceeds of which they hope to see them through a comfortable (not lavish) retirement and possibly leave a nice nest egg for the kids.