Only Immigration can save us from Pensioners

ash28

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And again....

Or

The idea of replacement migration, that is that Britain and the EU need immigrant workers to compensate for an ageing society, has been described by Anthony Browne, Director of the Policy Exchange think-tank, as "one of the most widespread and comforting self-delusions since humanity believed the sun went round the earth. It is the triumph of wishful thinking . . . over elementary demographics: immigrants are no fix for an ageing society because they age too."

More sensibly, the UK government actuary recommends "measures such as raising workforce participation ratio or discouraging early retirement are likely to remain a more practical tool for increasing the working population", and "A long term TFR [Total Fertility Ratio] of 2.0 children per woman would produce much the same support ratio at 2100 as would annual net migration of half a million people a year (to the UK) but with a total population of 75 million rather than 120 million."
October 2007

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82we32.htm

I don't for a minute believe mass immigration is the answer to the problem of an aging population.... what happens when the "fix" becomes the problem and immigrants age and are entitled to a pension - they become the same as any other person who has worked and over time the support ration would fall again - needing more immigrants.

I think the government (though it does pain me to say this) are probably going down the right road for the future....more UK citizens working (less of them sitting on their backsides) and our older population, unless they can support themselves to work longer.

The other thing is, how many immigrants will spend their retirement in the UK - some will probably reach retirement age go back to their country of origin and the UK economy won't see the pensions spent here.

One interesting thing I read was the developing world will age far faster than we have - what took a 100 years to happen in Europe could happen in 20 years in the likes of Thailand.

Surprisingly, the trend towards ageing societies can also be observed in developing countries. According to projections of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the average number of children per woman in the 50 least developed countries is going to halve from five to 2.6 until the year 2050. This decline in fertility should translate into wealth gains. In this context, one may expect that the average life expectancy in developing countries will rise from 51 years today to 66.5 years in 2050.

The effects of demographic change will be even more significant in developing countries than in Germany. There, ageing will take place at a far greater pace. An illustration: In France, it took more than 115 years to double the portion of people aged 60 or older from seven to 14 percent. By contrast, the same development will only take 20 years in Thailand.

http://www.berlin-institut.org/online-handbookdemography/population-ageing.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ash28 wrote: »

I don't for a minute believe mass immigration is the answer to the problem of an aging population.... what happens when the "fix" becomes the problem and immigrants age and are entitled to a pension -

The answer is either to increase the birth rate, or increase immigration.

Your report recommends increasing birth rate.

The problem we have at the moment, is that there will be at least a 20 year lag between increasing birth rate and the dependency ratio stabilising.

So immigration is needed at least until then.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

As the article linked to in the OP notes....

Immigration is part of the solution to how we deal with our changing demographics.

If we stop people coming to this country then one of the side effects will be that our worker/dependency ratio will shrink rapidly, as the number of workers covering the benefits of the very old and young shrinks.

And if that shrinks, then taxes must rise, as more pensioners are paid for by fewer workers.

As has been shown elsewhere, this also leads to big problems for the economy...

This is the case in countries where immigration levels are low. For example, Japan’s aging population are one of the reasons for its “lost decade” of economic growth.

If we let this problem go unresolved then it risks igniting an inter-generational war as the young feel increasingly unhappy with having to bear the burden of the old, without a chance of being able to enjoy the same benefits.

CLAPTON

the report, like so many is just wrong.

ash28

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The answer is either to increase the birth rate, or increase immigration.

Your report recommends increasing birth rate.

The problem we have at the moment, is that there will be at least a 20 year lag between increasing birth rate and the dependency ratio stabilising.

So immigration is needed at least until then.

Along with increasing workforce participation and discouraging early retirement.

The TFR at the moment, if I remember correctly is 1.96 - so not so far away from 2, assuming it stays there or rises and doesn't fall.

I'm not against immigration by any means just unfettered immigration.

And what about when your "immigrants" age and become part of the problem? More immigration?

And then end up with a population of how many?

The other thing is, we don't appear to be living quite as long as every one thought - the 2011 census showed that although the total population was 0.5 million more than was projected (using a rolling projection from the 2001 census), the numbers of very elderly were less than projected.

The new longevity figures (based on the 2011 census) have been delayed until sometime this year because of the difference between the numbers of the very elderly we thought we had vs the number we actually have. So perhaps the problem isn't quite as bad as we have been led to believe. Can't see it changing very much tbh, but every little helps....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

the report, like so many is just wrong.

Ah yes, the old "the report must be wrong" line.

Funny how that always seems to apply to any report about immigration being good for the UK.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ash28 wrote: »

The TFR at the moment, if I remember correctly is 1.96 - so not so far away from 2,

But only thanks to immigration.

Without the increased birth rate form immigrant parents, it would be nowhere near good enough.

I'm not against immigration by any means just unfettered immigration.

Ah good.

Of course, we don't have "unfettered immigration" today, so that should be fine.

And what about when your "immigrants" age and become part of the problem? More immigration?

We need to buy ourselves something in the region of 50 years to pass the burden down through the generations, so that we all pay for our own retirement, not that of those 2 generations ahead of us.

After that, we need to keep birth rates stable so we replace the population without big imbalances.

Graham_Devon

Or we could just cut our cloth accordingly.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Or we could just cut our cloth accordingly.

Which would mean recession, increased unemployment, decreased standards of living, etc.

Are you really so against immigrants that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which would mean recession, increased unemployment, decreased standards of living, etc.

Are you really so against immigrants that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face?

It's not about cutting off my nose to spite my face, it's accepting the fact that we've made mistakes, and now have to pay for them.

It really is that simple IMHO.

Were hardly gonna be a third worls country anytime soon, and were hardly going to have to live anything like countries with REAL problems. It just means less growth, and less greed. I personally don't have too much issue with that, so long as we are all in it together....not the current situation of big business making bucketfulls of cash while normal people up and down the country are seeing their living standards decline.....primarily because of said business's.

To be honest, all of that will happen with or without immigrants anyway. Again, it will only be the rich who can take advantage.