This trend for acronyms to describe a group of people is getting silly. In the 80’s we had the yuppies (young urban professionals), later we got the DINKs (dual income, no kids) and SITCOMs (Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage).
Now we have new designators, especially for kids. First we have the Neets. Apparently these are teenagers who are Not in Education, Employment or Training. Although surely, to avoid confusion with adults in the same situation (simply call unemployed. Sorry, no acronym here), perhaps they should be called Teenagers not in Education, Employment or Training, or TEETs.
And then we have IPODs, a group that is under 35 (hey, that’s me!) that is Insecure, Pressured, Overtaxed and Debt-ridden (no, that’s not me after all). Damn, that sounds depressing. But apparently I am a member of the Ipod generation, the one that came after Generation X. But that’s even more confusing, since according to the Wikipedia article, Generation Xers are born in the 1960s and 70s.
So, to put it in context, I’m a Generation X/Ipod Generation IPOD, former yuppie, former literal NEET, but never a TEET and unlikely to be a SITCOM.
Or should that be a GXIGIPODfYflNEETnNEETnSITCOM?
What a bunch of crap.
Update Time!
Yes indeed, we have a new classification: Suburban Asset Lightweights or SALs. These are people who are living middle class lifestyles despite being in the bottom fifth of the population in terms of “asset wealth”. In plain English: People in their mid-thirties who own no home but are in permanent employment.
4 Responses to “Bloody acronyms”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
To be honest a lot of the IPODs only have themselves to blame for being completely financially irresponsible. I read about people coming out of Hull Uni a few years after us with up to 20k in debt. I was still living in Hull at that point – still paying 150 a month in rent (whilst working) and wondering how on earth a student in Hull could run up that much debt. When I look at the student debt of my brother (which was about 2.5 times mine at completion) it was obvious why. He lived in much nicer digs than I did and spent about 2k on stereo equipment whilst at uni, and continued to drink a lot in more expensive pubs rather than student £1 a pint dives. Basically I feel that for the most part the debt is largely the result of ingrained middle class snobbery – i.e. a lack of willingness on the part of students to slum it whilst at uni.
Some fault lies with the banks – if they didn’t lend the money – the students couldn’t spent it – certainly my bank overdraft was capped at 750 by the bank anyway. Whereas my brother and sister got lent silly amounts.
Working in the holidays helps too.. I paid down my overdraft every summer doing factory work. So at the end of my third year – the only overdraft I had related to third year overspend.
[nods] Yeah- working in the holidays paid for my 2 PCs during my course and helped go towards my car towards the end as well.
Capping Bank Accounts & overdrafts was still in force- now the Banks are like “Oh you want 2k over draft for your first year? Here’s have 5k!”
Never got that in my day.
“I’m sorry- you don’t get 1.5k until your 3rd year.”
But for what it’s worth while we were at Uni, you didn’t have to pay 1k each year towards course fees (or whatever it is) and some people did get small amounts of Grant rather than relying purely on Parents + Overdraft.
But no- I agree- in general it’s purely self-inflicted.
“fecking stoodents!” >P
The fees thing is dealt with very very unfairly by the government. In fact it’s done in such a way as to potentially cause problems within families. e.g. Your parents earnings determine whether you get charged them. BUT – You are responsible for paying them, and the loan element for fees is taken out by you. There is little scope for declaring independence – e.g. my sister was living with her manfriend at the time, not with my parents – but fees were still levied on the basis of my parents (rather than her manfriend’s) income. The fee system is quite frankly a fecking shambles. It should be revised as follows:
IF parental income triggers fees -then:
1) The fees should be directly owed by the parents.
2) A loan repayable over 5-10 years at APR = Inflation should be offered directly to the parents to cover these fees.
Additionally:
1) Max student loans takable per year should then be reduced as no longer need to include fee repayment amounts.
2) The government should force banks to reinstate the capping system that was in effect in the mid 90s when we went to university.. (e.g. 500, 1000, 1500 stepped max overdraft limits) These should not be automatically given, students should be made to justify any given increment to the bank. If the increment is temporary – the bank should revoke it after the time it was needed for expires.