What shortgage 421,306 homes built in a single year in france!

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is far the biggest and most dangerous threat to the future prosperity of the UK.

I see it as a fact that needs to be explored and realistic proposals made.

I don't include another 100 million immigrants as a sensible solution.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

I see it as a fact that needs to be explored and realistic proposals made.

I don't include another 100 million immigrants as a sensible solution.

Immigration, or a massive increase in the birth rate, is the only viable solution.

Global population will peak by 2060 and decline thereafter.

The population of working age people in most major economies will start to decline long before then, in some it's declining already.

The consequences of that are absolutely disastrous.

Our best chance of maintaining prosperity and stability for the future is to massively ramp up immigration now, before other countries start to compete for the young of tomorrow.

ukcarper

Surely the quality of the jobs the people in work are doing has a big impact. How many people flipping burgers part time at the minimum wage does it take to = someone working full time in a good manufacturing company.

cells

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigration, or a massive increase in the birth rate, is the only viable solution.

Global population will peak by 2060 and decline thereafter.

The population of working age people in most major economies will start to decline long before then, in some it's declining already.

The consequences of that are absolutely disastrous.

Our best chance of maintaining prosperity and stability for the future is to massively ramp up immigration now, before other countries start to compete for the young of tomorrow.

Of course the only real alternative options is to increase the retirement age much further.

If life expectancy is say 90 years of age retirement at 65 is probably soon going to become unviable. In fact it is already being increased to 68.

That will probably head towards 75 in the not too distant future

Given the option of retirement at 68 and continued immigration vs retirement at 75 and much lower immigration I think most would rather retire earlier

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Of course the only real alternative options is to increase the retirement age much further.

If life expectancy is say 90 years of age retirement at 65 is probably soon going to become unviable. In fact it is already being increased to 68.

That will probably head towards 75 in the not too distant future

Given the option of retirement at 68 and continued immigration vs retirement at 75 and much lower immigration I think most would rather retire earlier

That depends on job you are doing. Another option could be to go part time or job share.

makeyourdaddyproud

ukcarper wrote: »

That depends on job you are doing. Another option could be to go part time or job share.

Most definately. I could do computer programming easily into my 70's but hard manual labour WILL take its toll, even by ones 50's.

cells

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

Most definately. I could do computer programming easily into my 70's but hard manual labour WILL take its toll, even by ones 50's.

Are therw many 'hard manual labour' jobs left and how many of those will go over the next 50 years.

I am less pessimistic about the too many old people problem. We are just entering the intelligence revolution which will make us far richer ans able to afford and support more pensioners per capita

Cornucopia

There was an interesting feature on BBC Click this week about the use of robot baby seals in Japanese care homes for the elderly.

Japan already has this issue of a rapidly aging population.

Whilst the use of fluffy robots may help, the care needs of the elderly are fairly basic, and involve real people providing assistance.

MFW_ASAP

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigration, or a massive increase in the birth rate, is the only viable solution.

The ultimate pyramid scheme, and a poor answer to the problem because then these immigrants will eventually want their pension paid for, and so it continues. A stop-gap option could be a 'guest worker' approach to immigration where the skilled worker pays reduced tax/ni in the UK and in return is not entitled to claim state pension in the future.

However, the only viable solution is to move away from any financial construct that requires a pyramid structure. The main ones being unfunded state and public pensions. All pubic sector defined benefit schemes need to close as they intrinsically unaffordable and unfair. The state then needs to create a sovereign wealth fund and pay NI contributions and any tax windfalls into that. This should pay a breadline pension.

As well as encouraging people to save for their own retirement (as they are doing with pensions auto enrolment), they need to create a personal pension on the lines of the American 401k that follows the person around, so that the individual's employer contributes into the employee's own personal pension, rather than the current system where companies pay into their own schemes and the employee who moves jobs ends up with lots of small pension pots, generally held in poor investment funds.

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The ultimate pyramid scheme, and a poor answer to the problem because then these immigrants will eventually want their pension paid for, and so it continues. A stop-gap option could be a 'guest worker' approach to immigration where the skilled worker pays reduced tax/ni in the UK and in return is not entitled to claim state pension in the future.

However, the only viable solution is to move away from any financial construct that requires a pyramid structure. The main ones being unfunded state and public pensions. All pubic sector defined benefit schemes need to close as they intrinsically unaffordable and unfair. The state then needs to create a sovereign wealth fund and pay NI contributions and any tax windfalls into that. This should pay a breadline pension.

As well as encouraging people to save for their own retirement (as they are doing with pensions auto enrolment), they need to create a personal pension on the lines of the American 401k that follows the person around, so that the individual's employer contributes into the employee's own personal pension, rather than the current system where companies pay into their own schemes and the employee who moves jobs ends up with lots of small pension pots, generally held in poor investment funds.

if there is a shortage of working people in relation tot he total population, then whether we have funded or unfunded pension schemes make no difference to the lack of people to do the work.