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

MFW_ASAP

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK.

I'm going to simplify this example to the extreme so as to make it easy to understand the concept.

Why not try again but use raios that are closer to reality (both current and projected) instead of skewing the figures (to the extreme) to suit your argument?

Excluding a nuclear war, zombie armageddon or meteor strike, I can't imagine such a large proportion of people too infirm to work compared to those who can. Which is pretty much my point.

p.s. My Dad is 70. I passed him this morning at the local newsagent at 5:30 while I was in my taxi to the Airport. He was helping unload the newspaper van before heading out to do his paper rounds. The newsagent told me he prefers pensioners because they are more reliable.

John_Pierpoint

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.

OMG those poor poverty stricken Germans.

A nation that will perish within a few centuries.

How have they gone so disastrously wrong when compared to booming Britain's mushrooming economy?

Start collecting food parcels now.

http://www.breathingearth.net/

[One birth every 47 seconds
One death every 35 seconds]

Meanwhile it is completely obvious that the other collection of islands, the Philippines is the rising power house of the world economy.

John_Pierpoint

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is a further solution, which is to encourage emigration of older people to other countries willing to accept them (and their pension wealth).

Not sure I would want to live in a country where the majority of the increasing population appear to have found a home by squatting within tuck tuck range of the city centres, regardless of how "vibrant" such arrangements might be.

http://www.retire-in-ecuador.com/

It is another of the 4:1 unsustainably growing countries.

Do we need to check the electric fence before retiring for the night?

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK.

I'm going to simplify this example to the extreme so as to make it easy to understand the concept.......

Don't disagree with the concept and general mathematics. But a couple of points to 'tweak' it.

1. Within your 12 people, you don't have anyone unemployed. Put one in to make it 13. Now 6 people have to support 7 others.

2. Next step, simply add one immigrant, capable of work. He works, but at the cost of 1 of the 6. So now we have 2 people unemployed. So 6 people now support 8 others.

3. You then changed your mix to 14 people. So now consider the same 2 infants, the same 3 workers, and 10 older people (the immigrant has retired) and 1 unemployed, then 3 workers are supporting 13 others.

So whilst there is a degree of unemployment [of 'able bodied' - but perhaps idle - people] I find it hard to see the economic benefits of a new immigrant. Unless it falls into the category of (a) the new immigrant physically creates extra wealth [not a productive 'job' that could be done by someone else] by starting his own business, or (b) brings with him a significant 'wad' to spend, or otherwise invest in the economy.

I really don't think we would 'design' it this way if we started our new 'Island Economy'. I think we would (broadly speaking), like most Asian countries, allow and facilitate working people to create wealth, get paid for it, and use the fruits of their labour to support their own children and their own retirement. Economic growth in the longer run comes from a controlled and steady rise in the population, plus improved efficiency, and importantly a positive balance of payments.

cells

Immigration is already set in stone in the uk.

A portion of the current immigrants will marry immigrants and bring them over and have children. Thus 1 current immigrant becomes two plus two children is four and in another generation those four kids grow up and have four children of their own and become 8

So even if there were 1 million such immigrants they will become 8 million. They are not having big families (only 2 kids per woman) but becuase there are no parents and grand parents in the uk to die and offset births population will rise.


This also applies to British folk marrying foreign spouses and living in the uk.
They have children and so do their children but there is only one side of parents and grand parents to die in the uk to offset the births.


So immigrant births and mixed racw births are here tonstay for two generations yet evwn if you dod somehow ban all additional incomers (excluding marriages which you couldn't)

Best that the haters just crawl under a rock and moan to themselves

Cornucopia

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Not sure I would want to live in a country where the majority of the increasing population appear to have found a home by squatting within tuck tuck range of the city centres, regardless of how "vibrant" such arrangements might be.

http://www.retire-in-ecuador.com/

It is another of the 4:1 unsustainably growing countries.

Do we need to check the electric fence before retiring for the night?

It was just a general point. In practice, it is already happening to a degree, and the countries concerned are Spain, France, Malta and the West Indies.

This page contains some demographic stats from Japan. They project that in 2050, Japan will be 40% over retirement age, 50% of working age. (Obviously other countries will be different).

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/05/16/japans-demographic-crisis/

John_Pierpoint

Just woken up in front of TV and found myself watching one of those Irish Traveller programmes. It featured a grandmother proudly claiming she had 29 grandchildren.
A community where 90 percent don't achieve their GCSE and find themselves learning to read to "pass the theory exam" to get a driving licence.

Obviously another powerhouse for the future of this economy.

cells

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Just woken up in front of TV and found myself watching one of those Irish Traveller programmes. It featured a grandmother proudly claiming she had 29 grandchildren.
A community where 90 percent don't achieve their GCSE and find themselves learning to read to "pass the theory exam" to get a driving licence.

Obviously another powerhouse for the future of this economy.

For most of human history women had an average of 6 kids each which means if they all survived and had 6 of their own a grandparent who didn't outlive theirbkids or grand kids would on average have had 36 grand kids

Anyway speaking of kids..... one way to solve the problem off too many old people is for kids to start working age 16 rather than age 21-22. That is 5-6 years longer in the labour force. An alternative is for the retirement age to grow by thr same 5-6 years. It would add about 10% to the workforce or equivalent of adding 6 million immigrants.

Dunroamin

Cornucopia wrote: »

It was just a general point. In practice, it is already happening to a degree, and the countries concerned are Spain, France, Malta and the West Indies.

This page contains some demographic stats from Japan. They project that in 2050, Japan will be 40% over retirement age, 50% of working age. (Obviously other countries will be different).

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/05/16/japans-demographic-crisis/

There aren't many savings for the UK to make by people retiring to other EU countries.

John_Pierpoint

Romania looks cheap?!

Moldova wants to join but do we want no buffer between the EU & Russia?