Housing Shortage - Numbers of Middle Aged Lodgers Soaring

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that it is desirable to maintain the current population level, but you don't actually substantiate why that should be so beyond things being somehow worse if we don't. Likewise, the fact that there isn't a shortage of labour doesn't disprove that there is a problem. There's still a deficit in what the UK produces vs what it consumes, hence rising debt. A depressed labour market improving might make up some of the slack, but that level is based on the equilibrium point we are currently moving away from. Your continual assertions that working longer or more productively can make up the shortfall are also unsubstantiated (i.e. you just say they could, not how it's achievable). The idea that we will face a shortage in the future that can be addressed suddenly is also laughable. The problem is gradual, and should be addressed as such.

It's clear that you've got it into your head that more people equates to worse, but the fact is that increasing life expectancy increases the proportion of people not being productive without increasing the productivity. It's all very well valuing space, but you're ignoring everything but the space. Furthermore, plenty of people dispute that we don't have enough space for population increase and enjoyment.

Advocating not doing anything until the ratio has shifted substantially risks not being able to move it back easily or even at all through making us an unattractive prospect. Moving with the increase in life expectancy to maintain the ratio is achievable. The fact that life expectancy is increasing is moving the ratio of working age to retired in a burdensome director for the working population. Are you wilfully refusing to recognise that it won't just happen all at once? Do you not get that life expectancy has all ready increased and people are alive now that wouldn't have previously been expected to be? That they are being supported by a working age population that as a result essentially has more people to support because they didn't die?

Your position appears to be for the population to work harder and longer and hope we can keep up with the life expectancy increase without immigration. I say that will reduce quality of life in terms of work life balance (i.e. the ability to enjoy all that space) and GDP, AND cause logistic and stability problems when we have to fall back on immigration. The logical option is to grow with the problem. I'm willing to bet there'll be space left over to enjoy too, once the population size has stabilised.

I do think that fewer is better within limits of course.
In brief:
I would prefer a world with 4 billion and falling than the present 8 billion and rising


I would prefer that we could produce a higher percentage of our energy and food requirements rather than proportionately less and less as the population grows


I would prefer to see our towns and cities retain their current look and feel and character rather than go the way of much of Asia and South America cities.


I would like to see our mountain areas and beaches remain relatively uncrowded


I don't want to see all our minor roads upgraded to motorways






These are value judgements about things that are of value to me.
You are fully entitled to disagree and see beauty and quality of life elsewhere.




Much of your economics is for a different post but I can't predict what discoveries and inventions and increases in productivity will emerge over the next 20-40 years but am happy to see them emerge and make judgements at the time... basically continue as we have for the last 2,000 years.


My argument is to wait and see just as we have always done.


Forcing the idle to work I see as a virtue rather than reduction is life / work balance


Not forcing 50 years old out of their jobs, I also see as a virtue rather than a reduction in life/work balance.




I don't believe in grand government plans; I prefer to see market forces leading the way. With immigration of course the government has to have a view.


In the 60-70s we deliberately imported large numbers of people from the West Indies.
We can all take a view as to whether that was in our best interests and improved our quality of life but it certainly delayed the need to address the appalling productivity of UK industry and the ridiculous restrictively practices at that time.


The 'problem' is a gradual one, lets solve it gradually in the light of how things work out.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

I do think that fewer is better within limits of course.
In brief:
I would prefer a world with 4 billion and falling than the present 8 billion and rising

I would prefer that we could produce a higher percentage of our energy and food requirements rather than proportionately less and less as the population grows

I would prefer to see our towns and cities retain their current look and feel and character rather than go the way of much of Asia and South America cities.

I would like to see our mountain areas and beaches remain relatively uncrowded

I don't want to see all our minor roads upgraded to motorways

These are value judgements about things that are of value to me.
You are fully entitled to disagree and see beauty and quality of life elsewhere.

That's all very nice for you. Outside of simply killing people after a fixed number of years post-retirement, the idea that we can actually achieve those things actually becomes less likely with a smaller population due to the increase in life expectancy. The problem is with how many people can't work, not how many people can.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Much of your economics is for a different post but I can't predict what discoveries and inventions and increases in productivity will emerge over the next 20-40 years but am happy to see them emerge and make judgements at the time... basically continue as we have for the last 2,000 years.

This is wishful thinking. The change is happening now.

CLAPTON wrote: »

My argument is to wait and see just as we have always done.

Forcing the idle to work I see as a virtue rather than reduction is life / work balance

Not forcing 50 years old out of their jobs, I also see as a virtue rather than a reduction in life/work balance.

I don't think forcing anyone to do anything is virtuous in any way.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't believe in grand government plans; I prefer to see market forces leading the way. With immigration of course the government has to have a view.

So the market forces that mean people who are free to move here and are doing so don't count in this instance? Because net immigration is happening, and by the criteria above you would seemingly support that.

CLAPTON wrote: »

The 'problem' is a gradual one, lets solve it gradually in the light of how things work out.

By allowing immigration to take place, thus maintaining the ratio of working age population to retired ... not by holding the population constant and making people work harder. You're not talking about solving a problem when it crops up. You're advocating causing one.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

-there are no substantial risks in delaying massive immigration:

CLAPTON wrote: »

The 'problem' is a gradual one, lets solve it gradually in the light of how things work out.

You are absolutely wrong.

The problem exists now. It's real, and it's happening today.

It will get worse every day from now, and the costs will continue to escalate every day from now.

By waiting, you are causing an even bigger problem, with higher costs, and that will require significantly more social disruption later to resolve.

If you think importing 400K people a year causes friction, can you imagine how disruptive it would be to have to try and import 8,000,000 in one year 20 years from now???

And in the meantime, the costs have increase, because we haven't had the benefit of 20 years of their financial input.

It's barking mad to try and wait.....

CLAPTON

Sarcasm and childish are not good debating qualities.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

danothy wrote: »

By allowing immigration to take place, thus maintaining the ratio of working age population to retired ... not by holding the population constant and making people work harder. You're not talking about solving a problem when it crops up. You're advocating causing one.

Spot on....

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You are absolutely wrong.

The problem exists now. It's real, and it's happening today.

It will get worse every day from now, and the costs will continue to escalate every day from now.

By waiting, you are causing an even bigger problem, with higher costs, and that will require significantly more social disruption later to resolve.

If you think importing 400K people a year causes friction, can you imagine how disruptive it would be to have to try and import 8,000,000 in one year 20 years from now???

And in the meantime, the costs have increase, because we haven't had the benefit of 20 years of their financial input.

It's barking mad to try and wait.....

on what am I absolutely wrong?


what is the problem : the severe shortage of workers?


what costs are you talking about?


why do you welcome the UK being more dependent on imported food and fuel?

PasturesNew

danothy wrote: »

Yes we can, the current ratio is about 4:1, and we can keep it at that ratio. This is what ratio means.

We can't ... physically.

When the 1 dies, four take their place, needing 16 to replace the previous 4s, to maintain the ratio.... then the 4s die, the 16s are now in top spot and you need 64 coming in at the bottom...

Where'd they all live? It's a pyramid.

danothy

PasturesNew wrote: »

We can't ... physically.

When the 1 dies, four take their place, needing 16 to replace the previous 4s, to maintain the ratio.... then the 4s die, the 16s are now in top spot and you need 64 coming in at the bottom...

Where'd they all live? It's a pyramid.

No, it's not. In a population of 5 you will have four workers and one retired. As they all age the retiree will eventually die, and the oldest worker will take their place. During that time one of the workers will also have sprouted a kid, who grows up to effectively be the youngest worker. This is a self sustaining population with a 4:1 ratio and a stable life expectancy.

Should life expectancy increase and the first retiree not die so soon, the population may find themselves with two retirees and four workers. Assuming the life expectancy increase has stabilised there is now a 2:1 ratio of workers to retirees, double the work load in terms of provision for others. Lacking other options, the population increases by immigration from some arbitrary place. There's now 8 workers and 2 retirees. Ratio restored. This isn't a problem, as in the long run the two retirees will die at some offset from each other, the two oldest workers will retire, and two of the working age population will have kids. Thus stable.

This scales. It is mathematically convergent so long as there is more working life than retirement. Thus, there is no pyramid unless there is increasing life expectancy. Life expectancy cannot increase indefinitely. Thus there is no pyramid.

CLAPTON

PasturesNew wrote: »

We can't ... physically.

When the 1 dies, four take their place, needing 16 to replace the previous 4s, to maintain the ratio.... then the 4s die, the 16s are now in top spot and you need 64 coming in at the bottom...

Where'd they all live? It's a pyramid.

it is clearly the case that the population size can be constant


i.e. the death rate equals the birth rate plus net immigration rate


take a population group that excludes immigration


then if death rate = birth rate the total population size will remain constant


simply knowing the death rate and birth rate doesn't how tell us much about the age distribution of the resulting population other than the size of the age group decreases with age.


if the causes of death are unchanged over time (i.e. no improvement in medicine or life choices to prolong life etc) then the population will eventually have a constant size and have a constant age distribution.


however whether that age distribution is optimal for production of goods and services is another matter.


often the discussion is centred round the ratio of retired to working age although equally one could discuss the ratio of working people to non working people (i.e. taking into consideration of children, sick as well as retired.)




there is no reason to assume a 4:1 of working age (whatever that is ) to the retired.


the actual ratio depends upon the age profile and our choices as to education and retirement.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

danothy wrote: »

there is no pyramid unless there is increasing life expectancy. Life expectancy cannot increase indefinitely. Thus there is no pyramid.

It's really a pretty simple concept to understand.

Maintaining the ratio of workers to retired people does not require exponential growth forever.

It does however require constant fine tuning of the numbers of people in society.

If the birth rate falls below replacement level for a number of years or decades (as has happened in the UK), then we need immigration to compensate for the shortage of working age people so as to maintain the ratio.

If retired people start living longer then the ratio changes, so we need to increase the numbers of working age people until the increase in age stops.

People cannot live forever. There will be a limit to ageing.

Until that limit is reached however, we need to maintain a more or less constant ratio, which means increasing the number of working age people to compensate when the number of retired people increases.

Once the ageing limit is reached, we can drop back to replacement rate for stable population, and we can stay there either via births or immigration, it doesn't matter which.