We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
financial incentives to address human overpopulation
Comments
-
well it's being proved right in china where the single child policy is seeing increased prosperity and a stronger economic base.
Absolutely wrong.
China is now starting to feel the pain from it's disastrous one-child policy.
The country now faces an inevitable economic decline as the rapidly expanding aging population overburdens the shrinking number of working age people.The effects of China's aging population are expected to reach crisis levels in 2035 when every pensioner is supported by less than two Chinese taxpayers, said Yang Yansui, a professor of Tsinghua University, during the 21st Century Forum held in Beijing on Sept. 8.
http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=2660As a result of the country’s low fertility rates since the early 1990s, China has already begun experiencing what will become a sustained decline in new entrants into its labor force and in the number of young migrants. The era of uninterrupted supplies of young, cheap Chinese labor is over. The size of the country’s population aged 60 and above, on the other hand, will increase dramatically, growing by 100 million in just 15 years (from 200 million in 2015 to over 300 million by 2030). The number of families with only one child, which is also on a continued rise, only underscores the challenge of supporting the growing numbers of elderly Chinese.
The aging of China’s population represents a crisis because its arrival is imminent and inevitable, because its ramifications are huge and long-lasting, and because its effects will be hard to reverse.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »it's obvious that the world's population is far too big, but to me trying to limit the growth of the UK population is a bit like spending millions cutting UK carbon emissions when china is burning an extra gazillion tons of coal every second (a situation which may only be compounded by their apparent sudden fear of nuclear). what impact would slightly reducing the birth rate in the UK have on the world's population? notalot. what can we do to reduce birth rate in other countries? nothing.
even if we do take steps to attempt to limit the UK birth rate, the population will still keep growing. if you cannot control immigration, what is the point of saying to families living here that they must only have 1 child.
But our children will use much more of the planet's resources than children born in poorer circumstances, so yes, it does matter that we reduce our birthrate.
I take your point about immigration, though. Although if we had disincentives to have large families, it might make us slightly less attractive to potential immigrants, who tend to have larger families than British-born people.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
, so yes, it does matter that we reduce our birthrate.
.
How much extra are you willing to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »How much extra are you willing to pay?
For what?...0 -
For what?...
For having a smaller population of working age people with an increasing number of the aging population to support.
How much extra are you willing to pay?
And how much extra are you willing for your children to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Absolutely wrong.
China is now starting to feel the pain from it's disastrous one-child policy.
The country now faces an inevitable economic decline as the rapidly expanding aging population overburdens the shrinking number of working age people.
http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=2660
the article says they may feel it in 2035....but mainly seems based on the notion that future care of the elderly must be paid for by people of working age. logic suggests that the money saved by having fewer children means these elderly will actually be financially better off (if they have saved rather than squandered) and therefore able to pay for their own care. i'd also say that women who have given birth and raised fewer children are likely to have fewer health problems in the longterm. elderly are only a 'burden' if they have no financial resources or suffer a long period of illhealth before dying.
i don't see a problem with a lack of supply of young cheap labour. this means fewer cheap disposable goods and demand on natural resources. these are things we are actually aiming for.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »For having a smaller population of working age people with an increasing number of the aging population to support.
How much extra are you willing to pay?
And how much extra are you willing for your children to pay?
as i said before. aging people don't need supporting if they have adequate retirement funds. something that is more likely to be the case if they haven't had children or had fewer children. do you really think the families with high birthrates in this country are on average providing for the elderly? or are they more likely to be a drain on the public purse.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »For having a smaller population of working age people with an increasing number of the aging population to support.
How much extra are you willing to pay?
And how much extra are you willing for your children to pay?
In general we need to work for longer as life expentency increases, not just keep increasing population levels until the whole thing collapses.0 -
the article says they may feel it in 2035...
No, the article says they'll be at "crisis point" by 2035.
The number of workers starts to decline from 2015. The number of aging people is already soaring..but mainly seems based on the notion that future care of the elderly must be paid for by people of working age.
Because thats true.
Whether it be through tax revenue, labour to care for them, supporting your own family, contributions to the economy which pays for infrastructure, etc etc etc.
Remember, we don't pay for our own state pensions and healthcare, we pay for the pensions and healthcare of people two generations ahead of us.
So again, how much are any of you willing to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
You chose to ignore the idea of working longer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards