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
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »No, the article says they'll be at "crisis point" by 2035.
They would also be at crisis point on or before 2035 if they didn't have a one child policy. That's what you don't seem to understand.
The difference between China or Bangladesh or Pakistan is that they recognise ecological limits and the long term consequence of exceeding them.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »They don't have adequate retirement funds. And there isn't enough time for them to save them now.
So how much more are you willing to pay?
you are like a stuck record.
however i suspect your real concern is fewer people = less demand for housing = lower house prices.:eek:Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »How much extra are you willing to pay?
why pay anything more? if we need some more taxpayers of working age i'm sure there will be plenty lining up to come here. all educated, innoculated and potty trained at the expense of others.
why pay to create your own when the world is abundant with willing workers?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
I think you are right that resources are not unlimited and thus exponential population growth is not possible
However I think we will all have to accept that with a constant or declining population the ratio of dependent to productive citizens will change for the worse. Looking in money terms 'I have provided for my retirement' misses the big picture. There will be fewer productive workers per dependent so those who are dependent will have to manage with less labour resource (be it carers, doctors, nurses, of golf course green keepers) and those who are working will be able to keep less of the fruits of their labour as it is 'shared' between all citizens. Pretending that this magic 'money' that you have saved will give you the amount of labour that you expect without a growing population to maintain the dependency ratio is just an illusion.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.I think....0 -
What a great idea discourage working people from having children. NOT!!! No hope for the future if we are only populated by those brought up on benefits and the mega rich. It will be bad enough as it is.:j Trytryagain FLYLADY - SAYE £700 each month Premium Bonds £713 Mortgage Was £100,000@20/6/08 now zilch 21/4/15:beer: WTL - 52 (I'll do it 4 MUM)0
-
shop-to-drop wrote: »What a great idea discourage working people from having children. NOT!!! No hope for the future if we are only populated by those brought up on benefits and the mega rich. It will be bad enough as it is.
Currently it is those on benefits that are positively encouraged to have more children.0 -
Unless, like mainstream economists, you believe in dubious ideas like the infinite substitutability of natural resources, there is no solution to scarcity of natural resources that are critical for industrial civilisation.
However, there is at least a partial solution to scarcity of human labour in the long term...it's featured heavily in virtually every work of fiction that depicts the future – it's simply greater automation, robotics, AI...Personally I think it's more likely too than a world population of 10 billion, 20 billion, 30 billion, pick any number...0 -
Currently it is those on benefits that are positively encouraged to have more children.
... and so the answer is to further discourage those that work and pay their way from having children? Barmy!!!:j Trytryagain FLYLADY - SAYE £700 each month Premium Bonds £713 Mortgage Was £100,000@20/6/08 now zilch 21/4/15:beer: WTL - 52 (I'll do it 4 MUM)0 -
Wrong, retirement age could be constatly upped to tie in with lifespan, for example 10 or 15 years retirement.
Wrong again, because lifespan is not predictable for any individual and health/frailty in older age still doesn't permit proper working in most cases.“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 -
why pay anything more? if we need some more taxpayers of working age i'm sure there will be plenty lining up to come here. all educated, innoculated and potty trained at the expense of others.
why pay to create your own when the world is abundant with willing workers?
Well done.
That's exactly the right answer.
Our economic competitiveness depends on maintaining the right balance of old to young. But there's nothing that says they have to be born here.
We can quite easily reduce our birthrate and make up the difference through immigration.
Which helps both the economy of the UK and the ecology of the planet.“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
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