Housing Shortage - Numbers of Middle Aged Lodgers Soaring

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

an approximately constant population is consistent with an approximately time invariant age distribution


however that age distribution may or may not give 4:1 ratio of 'workers' to 'retired'.


if you want to engineer a chosen ratio then you can't have a fixed population total; you get what you get




because 4:1 is the ratio today, there is no model that says there is a population stable system, that maintains that ratio.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.)

Yes, that is a published statistic and it's known as the total dependency ratio.

An example is as follows....

Dependency Ratio =

Number of Children (0-15) + Number of Pensioners ( > 65 )
————————————————————————-
Number of Working age 16-65

A dependency ratio of 1.0 means that for every 10 workers there are 10 people not of working age.

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

The age dependency ratio is somewhat different.

The UK's age dependency ratio in 2000 was 0.34 so for every ten people of working age there were 3.4 people of retirement age.

This is forecast to rise steadily to 0.65 by 2040, so for every ten people of working age there will be 6.5 people of retirement age.

That is a huge increase.

And it's already happening.

Hence why net migration is positive and will remain so.

The government are happy to pander to the Daily Mail readers in public, but in private they know full well that such an increase in retired people simply cannot be sustained by the working age population at those ratios.

So the population of working age people must grow to maintain a reasonable ratio of workers to retired people, until the increase in ageing slows/stops.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, that is a published statistic and it's known as the total dependency ratio.

An example is as follows....

Dependency Ratio =

Number of Children (0-15) + Number of Pensioners ( > 65 )
————————————————————————-
Number of Working age 16-65

A dependency ratio of 1.0 means that for every 10 workers there are 10 people not of working age.



The age dependency ratio is somewhat different.

The UK's age dependency ratio in 2000 was 0.34 so for every ten people of working age there were 3.4 people of retirement age.

This is forecast to rise steadily to 0.65 by 2040, so for every ten people of working age there will be 6.5 people of retirement age.

That is a huge increase.

And it's already happening.

Hence why net migration is positive and will remain so.

The government are happy to pander to the Daily Mail readers in public, but in private they know full well that such an increase in retired people simply cannot be sustained by the working age population at those ratios.

So the population of working age people must grow to maintain a reasonable ratio of workers to retired people, until the increase in ageing slows/stops.

however if you want an particular dependency ratio then you have no control of the total population




if you wish to maintain a total population then you can only sensibly control the dependency ratio by varying the age when work starts and when work stops




obviously in your view that doesn't matter, as you welcome a unlimited number of people to come and live here as it would seem, GDP is your only measure of value.

danothy

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Dependency Ratio =

Number of Children (0-15) + Number of Pensioners ( > 65 )
————————————————————————-
Number of Working age 16-65

A dependency ratio of 1.0 means that for every 10 workers there are 10 people not of working age.

The age dependency ratio is somewhat different.

The UK's age dependency ratio in 2000 was 0.34 so for every ten people of working age there were 3.4 people of retirement age.

This is forecast to rise steadily to 0.65 by 2040, so for every ten people of working age there will be 6.5 people of retirement age.

For clarity, my quote of 4:1 was intended to be approximate and illustrative, overlooking children as they are not the ones who are alive who would otherwise have died, i.e. the aged dependency ratio. I took the numbers from wolframalpha, which lists a 2010 estimate of about 41 million 15-64 and about 10 million 65+. This would produce a ratio of approximately 0.25, which doesn't chime with your statistics above. Where did you get them from?

A quick google led me to this: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-kingdom/age-dependency-ratio

I've no idea of it's authenticity or rigour, but it seems to line up for the 2010 numbers reasonably well. Quite worryingly, it shows the youth dependency ratio is declining while the old one is increasing. This aligns with the idea that the native UK pop isn't reproducing as much, but is ageing. Overall the dependency ratio is being balanced, but if there are less people to mature into workers, and more retirees overall because the original ones aren't dying there is going to be a huge problem with dependency due to a declining working age population compounding the ageing problem.

CLAPTON wrote: »

however if you want an particular dependency ratio then you have no control of the total population

if you wish to maintain a total population then you can only sensibly control the dependency ratio by varying the age when work starts and when work stops

obviously in your view that doesn't matter, as you welcome a unlimited number of people to come and live here as it would seem, GDP is your only measure of value.

You can only maintain a total population by enforcing a reproduction rate that matches the death rate, or by enforcing a death rate that matches reproduction. It would seem that the population size is your only measure of value.

There are limits to how long people can work. Varying the age boundaries of working life is something that is done to the degree that is reasonable. Varying the population is also something that should be done to the degree that is reasonable. Your assertion that we are at some sort of maximum desirable capacity all ready and should not is disputed.

The ability to support more people with less would be desirable too. The hope that you express that we will be able to do so, and the subsequent assertion that we should not therefore seek to increase population is ... well I can't tell if it's selfish and/or malevolent or just embarrassingly naïve.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

For clarity, my quote of 4:1 was intended to be approximate and illustrative, overlooking children as they are not the ones who are alive who would otherwise have died, i.e. the aged dependency ratio. I took the numbers from wolframalpha, which lists a 2010 estimate of about 41 million 15-64 and about 10 million 65+. This would produce a ratio of approximately 0.25, which doesn't chime with your statistics above. Where did you get them from?

A quick google led me to this: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-kingdom/age-dependency-ratio

I've no idea of it's authenticity or rigour, but it seems to line up for the 2010 numbers reasonably well. Quite worryingly, it shows the youth dependency ratio is declining while the old one is increasing. This aligns with the idea that the native UK pop isn't reproducing as much, but is ageing. Overall the dependency ratio is being balanced, but if there are less people to mature into workers, and more retirees overall because the original ones aren't dying there is going to be a huge problem with dependency due to a declining working age population compounding the ageing problem.



You can only maintain a total population by enforcing a reproduction rate that matches the death rate, or by enforcing a death rate that matches reproduction. It would seem that the population size is your only measure of value.

There are limits to how long people can work. Varying the age boundaries of working life is something that is done to the degree that is reasonable. Varying the population is also something that should be done to the degree that is reasonable. Your assertion that we are at some sort of maximum desirable capacity all ready and should not is disputed.

The ability to support more people with less would be desirable too. The hope that you express that we will be able to do so, and the subsequent assertion that we should not therefore seek to increase population is ... well I can't tell if it's selfish and/or malevolent or just embarrassingly naïve.

Yes , let me say straight away that wanting to limit the population at least in the south is selfish.
Absolutely, no question, 100%.


I have no wish to, nor do I, share my income with the rest of the world so all have equal income.


Nor, I believe do you.


My concerns are about the total quality of life which certainly include per capita income but also crowding, security of supply of food, fuel etc.


I do not have a specific target population size. It is absurd to suggest the enforcement of a specific target birth rate or a specific target death.


However, that it is a very different thing to decide to import vast numbers of people because of something that may or may not happen in 20-30 years time.


At the moment UK is not short of labour; we have no need to import people in bulk.


On the matter of statistics, I find it difficult to understand why the age to 15 is being used, why no consideration of un and under employment is being used in the ratios.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

My concerns are about the total quality of life which certainly include per capita income but also crowding, security of supply of food, fuel etc..

Do people in Holland and Belgium have a lower "total quality of life" than British people?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Do people in Holland and Belgium have a lower "total quality of life" than British people?

I haven't asked them for their perceptions about whether they would prefer lower population or not.
I doubt the average Netherlands person worries too much about their crowded mountains but I do understand many complain about their crowded public transport.


Nor do I know whether their official agreed policy is to import as many additional immigrants as possible.


Presumably you are going to tell me the answers?


You, presumably aren't concerned about the security of our fuel or food supply and the impact of another 30-40million?




I would say, the situation in Scotland is somewhat different and it may well be the wish of the Scots to import 2-3 million additional people and I would have no reason to disagree with their view.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

I haven't asked them

It would be very difficult indeed to make a convincing case that the Dutch have a materially worse quality of life than the English.

Despite the population density of Holland being 22% higher than England.

It would also be very difficult indeed to make the case that people living in the economically well off South East of England have a lower quality of life than people living in economically disastrous Ireland, despite the Irish population density being much lower.

Or for that matter to claim that people living in prosperous Monaco have a lower quality of life than people living in the economically depressed Welsh valleys.

It seems pretty clear that population density ranks fairly low on the list of determinants for quality of life for most people.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It would be very difficult indeed to make a convincing case that the Dutch have a materially worse quality of life than the English.

Despite the population density of Holland being 22% higher than England.

It would also be very difficult indeed to make the case that people living in the economically well off South East of England have a lower quality of life than people living in economically disastrous Ireland, despite the Irish population density being much lower.

Or for that matter to claim that people living in prosperous Monaco have a lower quality of life than people living in the economically depressed Welsh valleys.

It seems pretty clear that population density ranks fairly low on the list of determinants for quality of life for most people.

one could make the same observation about life in many countries of the middle east, horn of Africa, north korea etc but that all seem totally unrelated to whether our quality of life would improve or worsen if we import 30-40 million more people.


I see no reason why the quality of life in a welsh valley would be much affected by a vast infuse of immigrants into the SE.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

that all seem totally unrelated to whether our quality of life would improve or worsen if we import 30-40 million more people..

I rather suspect quality of life is more closely linked to economic issues than population density for most people.

I tend to agree with the evidence and data that suggests increasing population will improve the economic outlook for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the UK.

And I think that this will be more important in determining their quality of life than how much empty space they have in the nearby area.

You quite clearly agree with the less factual and more emotive arguments about 'overcrowding' instead.

We'll agree to disagree I think.....