Jilted Generation – book review
If you were born after September 1979, this book is about you. You are a member of the jilted generation. We are the jilted generation. Or so Shiv Malik and Ed Howker tell us in their book of the same name, coming out next week.
And they make a pretty convincing case that our generation has been screwed over. Replete with shocking statistics, fascinating graphs, and punchy sentences, the first half of the book is hard to argue with.
29% of men under the age of 34 live at home – they can’t afford to leave. Compared to our young parents, those of us who have left home live in smaller, lower quality houses. We are less likely to own them, and much more likely to be kicked out. It’s harder for us to find work than it was for our parents – much harder. And that was before the credit crunch. The work we do find is likely to be temporary, part time, and badly paid. Unlike our parents, we are expected to work for free as interns for long periods. And the credit crunch has disproportionately impacted the young more than any previous recession.
Young people have always been poorer, they tell us. But we are much poorer. And this isn’t just an affliction of our youth. The baby boomers – under the leadership of Thatcher – sold the family silver, and cashed it in for a 20 year consumer binge. The right to buy turns out to have been one generation taking the housing stock their parents had built for them, and selling it to themselves at a discounted rate. Instead of saving this money for their pensions, a criminal lack of foresight means that we will have to pay for their retirements too. We will bear these costs for the rest of our lives.
The generation who paid tuition fees have often felt that we are worse off than our parents. The first half of this book has the stats to back it up. They examine housing, jobs, and the public assets – and debts – that we will inherit. The case is convincing; the narrative compelling. We are the jilted generation. We will spend the rest of our lives paying for these mistakes.
The second half of the book attempts to explain this phenomenon. It explains rational choice theory, and Philip Gould’s government by focus group. It demands that politicians provide leadership – and that democratic decisions are devolved to the lowest level, where they are likely to be made better. It argues for land trusts, and co-ops.
But I’m not sure that it names the beast. Because at the end, after a whole book about how the Thatcherite experiment has failed – how treating voters as individual consumers has conned baby boomers into to stealing from their own children, the authors claim to support capitalism. And for me, if they support workers’ co-ops, radical democracy, and a more economic planning, then they are not supporters of capitalism.
But the book is a timely call. As the eldest baby boomers’ children enter their thirties, many still waiting for the adult lives they were expecting to begin, it demands that we start this debate. It’s time to work out what went wrong. Because until we work out how the generation which gave us free love accidentally gave corporations free reign, we risk leaving an even worse mess for our children.
Jited Generation – how Britain has bankrupted it’s youth – is published by Icon Books and comes out on the 2nd of September.
Find out more and buy the book at their website and join the discussion on the Facebook page.
My relatives all the time say that I am killing my time here at net, except I know I am getting knowledge
daily by reading such pleasant posts.
I seldom leave remarks, however i did a few searching and wound up here Jilted Generation – book review | Bright Green. And I do have a few questions for you
if it’s allright. Is it only me or does it look like some
of these comments come across like they are left by brain dead individuals?
😛 And, if you are writing at other online
social sites, I’d like to follow anything new you have to post.
Could you make a list of the complete urls of your shared sites
like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
My web page web link (andersonbeth44.blog.com)
I am glad people are starting to talk about this. I’ve thought it totally unfair for a long time & I am Gen X parent with a adult daughter still living at home so know exactly what the turf is as far as today’s young vs baby boomers & owned-housing, jobs, etc.
So many young people (including my daughter) have been conned to go to univ, work hard, you too can get a house, etc etc but these are a pack of lies for this current generation.
Something must be done about this inequality and writing books is a first step to public awareness of a quiet but stealthily eroding situation that is going on with young people today.
Sorry- that’s a single member of the Baby Boomer generation receiving £220,000 more in things like pensions and healthcare than contributing in tax. Bear in mind there’s 12 million of you.
To Jonno and Nicholas,
The point is not so much that the young are worse off now than they were then, but that the socio-economic gap between your generation and ours is much, much worse now than it was then. In your day you could bet that the older generation would be in a similar position to you (heck, they fought wars) but you got older and you gave yourselves comfortable pensions, homes and healthcare, and we are taxed to crap to pay for it.
According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Baby Boomers will receive £220,000 more in things like pensions and healthcare than contribute in tax. This is in contrast to a child born in 2011 who will have to pay £68,000 more than receive, and a child born in the next decade will have to pay more than double that; an incredible £160,000.
That is the long-term financial cost but what price will be paid by the social well-being of those future generations; in health, in housing, in jobs and in happiness? Only time will tell, but it is obvious that they will not have the same quality of life previous generations have enjoyed.
Sure we may be able to buy things we want; laptops, ipods etc, but what about the things we NEED? You tell us one moment that material wealth means nothing, then the next you tell us to quit complaining because we have meaningless material wealth. What kind of message is that to send to your grandchildren?
Thomas Jefferson wrote that ‘it is incumbent on each generation to pay its own debts’, but you haven’t. You may have had it hard in your youth but you got older and funnelled the worlds wealth and resources to yourselves with no regard for the future and now the young and the yet to be born must pick up the tab over the entire course of their lives for your over-indulgence.
The book made me feel sick too, but for very different reasons.
-Angry Young Man
The amount of personal wealth around in the ealy ’60s when I was about 20 was absolutely nothing compared to what even the poorest young people have now. I didn’t own a radio or a camera till I was 26. I got to university by fighting all the way and thanks to my grammar school. My fellow students were as poor as shite. I lived in 1 room with my cooking done on a gas ring in the hearth of my fireplace, washing up in the cellar below. OK, things are tough for young people today, but compared to us they do have it very easy. Look at the third world. People there DO really struggle for top education and they have the attitudes we had in the 50s and 60s. They value education, we don’t – look at all the lazy parasites in schools making it hell for those who want to learn in our state schools – their parents should be publically admonished for their offsprings’ attitudes. People have to be given opportunities and fair ones at that, but if they refuse to take them then they should receive only the barest support.
The book makes me feel sick, I am a baby boomer (1951)who spent 2 teenage winters homeless without any access to social security of any sort. My main diet was sugar cubes. The only way I managed to get a house was to move into the bush and build it from stone, learning from my mistakes. I have been paying national insurance for more years than I care to remember but cannot even see a doctor because they are closed on Saturday’s, let alone use the younger generations share of available medical services. Get Real, authors, get on your bikes, each generation have their own problems to overcome.
My main concern on this book , as baby boomer, is what sort of community we should be providing for our younger generation … where the cut of responsiblity lies …
This book is about youth in UK. Not sure if this is applicable to Asian countries either ..Do see desperate youngsters in the east … and when looking at Middle Asian folks, the worry is much more valid.
Sorry Adam. Us babyboomers are the pits.
Thanks Adam & Shiv. I’ll keep an eye out for anything that sheds any light on this.
From Shiv Malik (the author):
Your blog won’t let me post!
But here’s the answer to the q on women from Bright Green Scotland
The stat for women is 18%. WE haven’t worked out why this is much lower. It could be that more women are in employment (although if they do have a job it is low paid). It could also be that it is easier for unemployed women to live with employed men than it is the other way around.
The intersting thing is that it is the same in the US. 18.8% of white men and 23.6% of Black men aged 25 live at home. This stat is much lower for women. But all are worse than the stats for the 1970’s.
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=72&articleid=519
Shiv
yeah, that’s interesting. I’ll ask Shiv if he has any idea why it is when I see him at the launch next week…
The average age difference in marriage is only 2 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/low/health/newsid_7485000/7485200.stm
I don’t think that this is really much of a factor.
Sorry, I should say, I’m not being wilfully obscure – I don’t have the book in front of me, and can’t remember the stat…
Hello,
yeah, the book gives the one for women too. It is also surprisingly high, but it is lower. I’d certainly be interested for people to give their thoughts on why it’s different – I wonder if it’s partly a relationship thing – women often have older male partners? I really don’t know.
I keep reading this. Why is this a male only statistic? What is the stat for women under the age of 34? I am guessing there is a big difference, if there is then why? I don’t think it can only be because they can’t afford to leave their parents at all.
One point of departure from the logic of capital which they obviously support – land trusts – also happens to be a realistic political programme at the moment that can prevent houses built on them from becoming iniquitous speculative weapons against future generations. What’s more, they put control in the hands of small local democratic bodies rather than the hands of a state prone to seizure by neo-liberals.
Labour started to put very modest resources into developing a community land trust network, made the HCA tentatively support them in a few regions of the UK, and legislated to clarify their legal status. The current government has one ray of light in their dreadful housing policy, the creating of so-called Local Housing Trusts which share features with community land trusts.
In Scotland of course they have been used extensively for rural communities particularly on islands.
Jenny Jones has done a lot of work on them in London, and Jenny and I are proposing a small amendment to Green Party (England & Wales) policy to clarify and extend our existing committment to the model.
For those interested in campaigning for generations priced out of home ownership and stuck in high-cost low-quality private rented accommodation, it’s one possible point to focus on.