jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Feb 22, 2022 14:11:31 GMT
The argument that we need to expand the young population to pay for the upkeep of the old is unsustainable.These young of course will age and require an even larger army of new young to look after them in some mad economic population ponzi scheme, which as all ponzi schemes must collapse... That's not the argument at all. Take another look at the population graph:  In a steady state, if the birth rate was just enough to maintain the population and there was no net immigration, the numbers in each cohort would be larger at the bottom and decline over time as people die. But that's not what the graph shows. There is a waist at the bottom because the birth rate is too low to maintain the population without immigration. There is also a bulge between 50 and 64. The birth rate is falling (as it is all over the developed world) because fewer and fewer women choose to have more than two children, while many choose to have one or none. If you were to project the graph forward over time, with no immigration, you would find significant and sustained population decline together with a massive rise in the dependency ratio. That is fiscally unaffordable and would cause major social problems. In an ideal world (that is to say, ideal for the UK) we'd have enough net immigration to sustain the population at about its present level (or just above). We'd still see a rise in the dependency ratio as the bulge between 50 and 64 moves into retirement, but it should be manageable, particularly if we allow enough immigration that the population rises a bit. Other developed countries face similar problems. For them, too, the solution should be to allow enough immigration to at least sustain the population - which is fine if the population of the world continues to grow. Whether that's sustainable is another matter, but it won't grow indefinitely. Globally, the birth rate is below replacement rate almost everywhere now except Africa, and Africa is likely to get there too. The world's population will continue to rise for a generation or two, simply because there are so many young people. But it should eventually begin to fall - as we must all surely hope. What happens then will be our great-grandchildrens' problem, if we haven't fried the planet by then. I anticipate the western world being much more welcoming of immigrants than it is today, with countries competing for them. At least, that's the optimistic view. The dystopian alternative is dictatorships forcing the birth rate up by Kinder, Küche, Kirche... And 29.3% of births in 2020 were from females born outside the UK, the highest since records began and on a upward trajectory. The birth rate is also much higher for females born outside the UK. Females born in Poland were the highest for many years but Brexit has changed the mix. Now it is Pakistan followed by Romania. Reducing migration not only has an immediate effect, it also has a disproportionate effect on the birth rate. Be interesting to see what happens over the next few years.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Feb 22, 2022 14:34:31 GMT
The other option is to provide EOL (end of life) alternatives at the terminal end. That take up could be a whole new graph .
Hands up those on this thread who would welcome a painless civilised option as opposed to care workers to top and tail you 4x day (if you are lucky).
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 1,288
|
Post by james100 on Feb 22, 2022 17:03:07 GMT
The other option is to provide EOL (end of life) alternatives at the terminal end. That take up could be a whole new graph . Hands up those on this thread who would welcome a painless civilised option as opposed to care workers to top and tail you 4x day (if you are lucky). Dignitas is 20K all in, I think. Pricey because to do it properly means - as I understand - specialist checks (medical both physical & psychological), lots of legal paperwork, massive amounts of communication, pleasant surroundings to ensure, crucially, the free, full and unequivocal consent of the person who's going to die. I agree with the principle when it is managed in this way. In contrast, the UK has a history of questionable activity relating to EOL of the vulnerable (Liverpool Care Pathway, blanket DNRs on people with learning disabilities, seeding old covid patients back into aged care homes at the height of a pandemic, for example) so seems to fail a bit on *ahem* execution when it comes to basic consent. Not filling me with much confidence it won't end up as a "resource optimization" killing spree tbh. And don't get me started on elder abuse and coercive inheritance grabs...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014 
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 23, 2022 7:52:48 GMT
Perhaps if people refused to buy those properties...? But, no, they fight to pay top whack for them. You can't blame builders for building what buyers want, can you? Surely you're not suggesting people with the funds to buy a house don't actually buy one? Or wait half their lives until they can afford a bigger one? No. Because these crappy new builds are not the only properties on the market. People are actively choosing to accept that lack of space, in return for other perceived advantages. Builders are building highly-packed yet highly-priced houses because people want to buy them and because they're highly profitable. No more, no less. Land amortises to a relatively small part of the sale price of those houses in many cases. On the edge of one of my local towns, there's recently been a development of 25x properties, average asking price about £300k. The 1.6 acre plot was on the market with an asking price of £1m. That's £40k/property, barely more than 10% of the sale price. And, fwiw, the original planning permission's requirement for shared ownership and affordable properties was scaled right back to an absolute bare minimum by the developer paying a substantial amount into the council. You can bet that allowed them to bring more revenue in than it cost... This in a town with a desperate shortage of lower-priced property, and low wages in most local jobs. The only controversy was from you objecting to it being highlighted to be an opinion, not a fact. If you believe it to be a fact, provide some supporting evidence. Yes, the UK is one of the denser countries in Europe. That's a simple fact. But it's not dense overall. Again, a fact. Those facts are backed up by reference to comparative statistics. Also backed up by statistics is the fact that the density in popular areas is far higher than in unpopular ones. An opinion is that that illustrates that people don't actually care that much about population density when it comes to making their own life decisions. Another opinion is that the metrics which are often used to suggest population density is "too high" instead point to massive under-investment from government in infrastructure and services, coming from the same people who instead blame migration and high population density for those issues.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 23, 2022 7:58:21 GMT
And 29.3% of births in 2020 were from females born outside the UK, the highest since records began and on a upward trajectory. The birth rate is also much higher for females born outside the UK. Are you introducing that as a simple statistical illustration, or are you assigning some qualitative opinion to it? Given that the same Brexit issues apply to Romanians as Poles, perhaps there's also an element of the Polish domestic economy has benefited from EU membership and is now wealthy enough that fewer people migrate to send home money? Yes, it does - because those people who migrate here for work tend to be in their peak reproductive years, which is an under-represented age band in the "domestic" population. Over the longer term, many of the UK-born babies of those migrant mothers will themselves have UK-born babies.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 23, 2022 15:45:29 GMT
Surely you're not suggesting people with the funds to buy a house don't actually buy one? Or wait half their lives until they can afford a bigger one? No. Because these crappy new builds are not the only properties on the market. People are actively choosing to accept that lack of space, in return for other perceived advantages. Builders are building highly-packed yet highly-priced houses because people want to buy them and because they're highly profitable. No more, no less. Land amortises to a relatively small part of the sale price of those houses in many cases. On the edge of one of my local towns, there's recently been a development of 25x properties, average asking price about £300k. The 1.6 acre plot was on the market with an asking price of £1m. That's £40k/property, barely more than 10% of the sale price. And, fwiw, the original planning permission's requirement for shared ownership and affordable properties was scaled right back to an absolute bare minimum by the developer paying a substantial amount into the council. You can bet that allowed them to bring more revenue in than it cost... This in a town with a desperate shortage of lower-priced property, and low wages in most local jobs. The only controversy was from you objecting to it being highlighted to be an opinion, not a fact. If you believe it to be a fact, provide some supporting evidence. Yes, the UK is one of the denser countries in Europe. That's a simple fact. But it's not dense overall. Again, a fact. Those facts are backed up by reference to comparative statistics. Also backed up by statistics is the fact that the density in popular areas is far higher than in unpopular ones. An opinion is that that illustrates that people don't actually care that much about population density when it comes to making their own life decisions. Another opinion is that the metrics which are often used to suggest population density is "too high" instead point to massive under-investment from government in infrastructure and services, coming from the same people who instead blame migration and high population density for those issues. Yes I objected in the same way as RM objected, in the same way you object in all your debates and in the same way as anyone else "objects" to statements made by others. I didn't then go and block anyone as RM has done... I think I said whether or not you believe a growing population and housing stock is a good thing for a country comes down to "belief". I know you love to copy in stats you find from elsewhere that suit your argument but this is one which at least in part comes down to individual choice. Clearly most people would not like to live in an area with literally nobody else for company. Nor would most want to live in a world where we have 1 person per square metre. Therefore if the extremes are not popular what is the happy medium and how does that vary across the population? This is under the assumption that public services are not stretched in all cases. Very hard to bring up any meaningful stats IMO. Ultimately I was exploring whether anyone could say "there are too many people/houses in the UK" without being accused of being racist/fascist/etc". It seems that those on your side of the debate find it too distasteful to even discuss in a reasonable/rationale way which I don't understand.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 23, 2022 16:01:09 GMT
I think I said whether or not you believe a growing population and housing stock is a good thing for a country comes down to "belief". I think Sir may wish to re-read the last few pages. Of course you were. BTW, what is "my side of the debate"? What is the debate, even?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 23, 2022 16:07:12 GMT
I think I said whether or not you believe a growing population and housing stock is a good thing for a country comes down to "belief". I think Sir may wish to re-read the last few pages. Of course you were. BTW, what is "my side of the debate"? What is the debate, even? Dunno...and what's its connection to interest rates? We've/I've gone too far down the rabbit hole.....
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Feb 23, 2022 16:15:18 GMT
I didn't then go and block anyone as RM has done... I haven't blocked you, and never said I would. Blocking is far too close to "no-platforming" for my liking. What I did say was that I would refrain from engaging in debate with you. It's something that I find tiring and frustrating, and you don't enjoy (for my tastes too frequently interpreting it as attacking you, or, god forbid, bullying you). And I really don't want that. Incidentally, whilst I'm clarifying things, I never "ran this site". I was one of a group of volunteers who moderated and administered it. Not quite the same thing. Have a good day  . RM
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 23, 2022 16:41:14 GMT
I didn't then go and block anyone as RM has done... I haven't blocked you, and never said I would. Blocking is far too close to "no-platforming" for my liking. What I did say was that I would refrain from engaging in debate with you. It's something that I find tiring and frustrating, and you don't enjoy (for my tastes too frequently interpreting it as attacking you, or, god forbid, bullying you). And I really don't want that. Incidentally, whilst I'm clarifying things, I never "ran this site". I was one of a group of volunteers who moderated and administered it. Not quite the same thing. Have a good day . RM I never once used the word "bully". I'm 99.99% sure of that. I think someone else thought it was bullying. Again "attacking me" pretty clearly means attacking my argument. Its a bit ridiculous that I now find myself trying to persuade you that I never thought you of a bully. All a bit odd and convoluted. May I suggest you "find me tiring" because you tend to disagree with virtually everything I say? Which is fine of course. As for you running or apparently not running the site, I'm ok not to explore that further.
|
|
.